9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Raichandani, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER This is Revenue's appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. AT/679/M-III/2005, dated 26-12-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-II. 2. The respondent, M/s. Leibert Corporation, USA, entered into a technical know-how agreement with M/s. Emerson Power Network (I) Pvt. Ltd. for supply of technical know-how ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalties. The notice was adjudicated vide order dated 13-9-2004 wherein the demands were confirmed along with interest and also penalties were imposed under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 on M/s. Leibert Corporation, USA. On appeal, the lower appellate authority held that, in view of the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Navinon Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-VI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the matter is pending before the High Court [2008 (9) S.T.R. J114 (Bom.)] and, therefore, the lower appellate authority was wrong in his conclusions. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered the submissions made by both the sides. 7. 'Consulting Engineer's Service' relates to rendering of advice, consultancy or technical assistance in any branch of engineering to a client by a consulting engineer or an engineering firm. The said service does not, in any way, relate to supply of technical know-how which the respondent has undertaken in the present case. They have supplie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble High Court. It is informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the said decision of this Tribunal has not been stayed. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the activities undertaken by the respondent in the case is not exigible to service tax under the category of 'Consulting Engineer's Service'. 8. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the Revenue's appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
