2016 (4) TMI 1077

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er facts on records, M/s. Escorts Ltd, who are engaged in the manufacture of various motor vehicle parts, availed the services of foreign consulting firm, M/s. Kayaba Industries (P) Ltd., Japan. M/s. Escorts paid technical know-how fee to the said service provider, which was a lump sum amount as also royalty paid for the licence to manufacturer the goods, which was based on the price of the final products. The period involved in the present appeal is from September, 2000 to Feb., 2002. 3. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of show cause notice dated 15.02.2005 proposing confirmation of service tax under the category of Consulting Engineering Services. The said show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the Or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on who is a non-resident or is from outside India, does not have any office in India and is liable to pay service tax on taxable services provided in India "  (i) The service tax thereon shall be paid by such person or on his behalf by any other person authorized by him, who shall submit to the Commissioner of Central Excise in whose jurisdiction the taxable services have been rendered, a return, containing the following details,  (a) ....................  (b) ................................... 7. As is clear from the above rule, first of all, the same provides for confirmation of service tax in respect of the services provided by a foreign national in India and then talks about the recovery of the said service tax fr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Commissioner (Appeals), which is challenged before us in the appellants appeal. Accordingly, his appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. 9. As regards the Revenue's appeal, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the demand by relying upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Navinon Ltd. referred supra. The only ground for the Revenue to challenge the said part of the impugned order is that the Tribunal's decision in the case of Navinon Ltd. (supra) has not been accepted by them and stands challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. On being questioned, both sides fairly agrees that the Bombay High Court's decision is not available inasmuch as the appeal is still pending. However, there .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X