2018 (12) TMI 1187 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - technical know-how was transferred to M/s Lupin Ltd. for the manufacture of active Pharmaceuticals Ingredients - case of the department is that this transaction is of providing services of scientific or technical consultancy services - Held that - On going through the agreement between the appellant and the Lupin Ltd, the transaction is of supply of technical know-how. The agreement is for supply of microbial strain and technology thereof and for Demonstration on laboratory (shake flask) scale for the fermentation process to manufacture lovastatin by M/s Lupin Ltd. As per the terms of payment also, it is a one-time payment for supply of strain and technical know-how. In this case it is clear that the agreement between the appellant and Lupin Ltd is for supply of technical know-how for the manufacture of lovastatin by the Lupin Ltd. Therefore, allegation of the department that the services involved is the scientific and technical consultancy services, is incorrect. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
Classification of transaction as scientific or technical consultancy services for the supply of technical know-how.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of a transaction involving the supply of technical know-how for the manufacture of a pharmaceutical ingredient as scientific or technical consultancy services. The appellant contended that the transaction was a one-time transfer of technical know-how and should not be classified under consultancy services. The Tribunal analyzed the agreement between the parties, which clearly outlined the scope of the agreement for the supply of strain and technology for the fermentation process. The terms of payment also indicated a one-time payment for the supply of technical know-how. Relying on various precedents, including Matrix Laboratories Ltd. and Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the transaction was a sale of technical know-how and not consultancy services. The judgments emphasized that the transfer of technology without ongoing service provision does not fall under the category of consultancy services, especially when valuable consideration is exchanged for the transfer of technical know-how.

In the case of Matrix Laboratories Ltd., the Tribunal highlighted that the sale of technical know-how for the manufacture of pharmaceutical ingredients did not constitute scientific or technical consultancy services. The judgment emphasized that the transfer of technology for valuable consideration did not involve continuous service provision, leading to the conclusion that it was a sale rather than a consultancy service. Similarly, in the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., the Tribunal ruled that agreements for the sale of technical know-how did not amount to providing consultancy services. The Tribunal emphasized that the agreements focused on the transfer of technology for manufacturing products, and any additional activities were aimed at achieving economies in the manufacturing process rather than providing consultancy services. The judgments cited in these cases supported the view that the transfer of technical know-how for a one-time payment does not constitute scientific or technical consultancy services, aligning with the appellant's argument in the present case.

Based on the analysis of the agreement and the precedents cited, the Tribunal concluded that the transaction in question involved the supply of technical know-how for the manufacture of a pharmaceutical ingredient and was not liable to service tax as scientific or technical consultancy services. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, following the principles established in the cited judgments.

← Previous Next →