9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce again. - the entire transaction is one of transfer of technical know-how inasmuch as R&D cess under Section 3 of the R&D Cess Act has been paid and therefore the transaction does not merit to be treated as ‘design services'. Design services would come within the category of IPR inasmuch as the supply of the drawings and designs, the foreign entities have applied for patent and since the transfer is of permanent nature, it does not fall within the definition of IPR services as defined in the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant has declared the transaction to the concerned authorities at the relevant time and there is no suppression of any fact or withholding of any information from any of the authorities. - stay granted. - ST/87589 & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire consideration paid to the foreign supplier and these bills of entries were assessed to duty and the goods were cleared. Since the transaction involved transfer of technical know-how, the appellant also discharged R D cess under Section 3 of the R D Cess Act. Thereafter, the Excise department at Pune woke up and were of the view that the drawings and designs imported by the appellant amount to import of design services and, therefore, it is liable to service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzzd) under the category of Design Services'. The contention of the appellant is that the same transaction cannot be treated as supply of goods for the purpose of Customs duty and supply of services for the purposes of service tax liability. Further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereas the show cause notice have been issued to the appellant only on 15/12/2011 and 20/04/2012. Inasmuch as the transactions were declared to the competent authorities at the relevant time, the question of suppression any facts from the department would not arise at all. In these circumstances, he pleads for grant of stay. 4. The learned Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, while justifying the conclusion drawn by the adjudicating authority, submits that once the transaction falls within the definition of taxable services, notwithstanding its treatment as supply of goods, service tax liability would accrue and it is his contention that the same transaction can be taxed under different tax laws if the transaction falls within t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
