9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... predeposit, I take up the appeal. 2. The appellant-company is engaged in the manufacture of textile machinery: They obtained technical know-how from one Mr. Hubert Hergeth, Belgium under a collaboration agreement dated 11-10-1999 for the manufacture of condensers (referred to as licenced products in the above agreement) in India. As per the terms of the agreement, they were liable to pay to Mr. Hergeth, as consideration for the above benefit, royalties at the rate of 5% in respect of the sales of the licenced products in India and 8% in respect of the export of the licenced products out of India for a period of 7 years. Accordingly, the appellant- company paid royalties to the Belgium collaborator during the period July, 2002 to Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax also should be specified in such Notification. It is submitted by learned consultant that the only Notification relevant to this context is No. 36/2004-ST dated 31-12-2004 issued under Section 68 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and that, by virtue of this Notification, a recipient of Consulting Engineers' Service can be said to be liable for payment of service tax on such service only with effect from 1-1-2005, i.e., after the period of dispute in the present case. In this connection, learned consultant has relied on the decision in Aditya Cement v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2007 (7) S.T.R. 153 (Tri.) = 2007 (218) E.L.T. 116 (Tri.) = [2007] (10) VST 13 (CESTAT - New Delhi)] and also the decision in Ispat Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecipients of the specified services liable to pay service tax. For the purpose of the present case, I shall go by such interpretation inasmuch as there is no serious objection from either side in this connection. But the fact remains that the service recipients became liable to pay service tax on the specified services only after 31-12-2004. Learned SDR has submitted that there was a pre-existing provision in the Service Tax Rules, 1994 providing for payment of service tax on specified taxable services by the recipients of such ser where the service-provider was a non-resident and had no office in India. Learned consultant acknowledges this position but submits that such a rule did not have any effect without necessary amendment to the char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
