9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. - ST/261/2009-DB - Final Order No. 21481/2018 - Dated:- 27-9-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Thomas Vellapally, Advocate For the Appellant Smt. Kavita Podwal, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 29/12/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax whereby the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of service tax on the appellant under the category Consulting Engineer Service for the period up to 09/09/2004 under Section 73(1) and also confirmed the service tax amounting to ₹ 15,45,452/- under the category of Intellectual Property Service for the period from 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , by Order-in-Appeal dt. 16/01/2009 held that such royalty payments did not attract service tax. He further submitted that the earlier order of the Commissioner(Appeals) was binding on the Commissioner and had become final since no appeal was filed by the Department against the same. He further submitted that it has been consistently held by the CESTAT that transfer of technology and payment of technical fee or royalty for the same are not service rendered by consulting engineer and do not attract service tax. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Ship Owners‟ Association Vs. UOI wherein the Hon ble High Court has held that the service r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in favour of the appellant, were under challenge before the Hon ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that after the circular issued by the CBEC, the Hon ble Supreme Court disposed of all the appeals pending before it relating to transfer of technology by foreign company to Indian company thereby upholding the findings of the Tribunal which is reported in 2012(25) STR J93 (SC). 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of material on record, we find that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of Veleo Friction Material India Pvt. Ltd. which was upheld by the Supreme Court after the CBEC has issued the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
