9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Board unless such technical know-how etc are listed under the law for time being in force in the country and the services cannot be held to be a taxable service. The services received by the appellants from Rolls Royce Turbomeca Limited, U.K. are not in the nature of Intellectual Property Services as defined under Finance Act, 1994 - appeal allowed - decided against Revenue. - ST/MISC/665/2012 in Service Tax Appeal No. 210 of 2012 - Final Order No. 20253/2020 - Dated:- 27-2-2020 - HON'BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mr. Indranil Banerjee, CA For the Appellant Mr. S. Devarajan, Dy. Commr. (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: P. Anjani Kumar Brie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no commercial activity is involved in the entire act. He also submits that the issue of payment of technical know-how etc to the foreign entities by the appellants to various overseas transferors of technology was under litigation at their Nashik in Maharashtra and Rolls Royce Turbomeca Limited in U.K. He submits that in respect of their unit in U.K, the demand was raised in respect of the agreement with Russia Government for the manufacture of unit 30 aircrafts under the heading Consulting Engineer Services . The issue travelled to the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal who have held that payments made by the appellant-company was for transfer of technology under Inter-Governmental Agreement and not for receipt of any services in India in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be covered under taxable services. 3. Learned AR for the Department submits that it is not a contract between the two Governments as submitted by the appellant but a contract between a PSU and a foreign entity under the general agreement reached between the Government of U.K. and Government of India. He further submits that on going through the terms of the agreement, it is categorically held at para 24.4 of the contract that there is a patents, designs and copy rights to the extent that was required in the manufacture of aircrafts. He further reiterates the findings of the Order-in-Original. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. On going through the issue involved, the following emerges: Appellants re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prove upon that case after considering the defence raised by the assessee. On merits, it is his submission that the contract entered by the appellant assessee is on behalf of the Republic of India for the supply and transfer of licence for production of fighter aircraft, engines, air borne equipments. The said agreement was entered on 28 December 2000 accordingly, appellant assessee paid the amounts to the foreign-based firm. He would take us through the agreement which was produced for perusal of the bench and submits that the findings do not 'indicate as to how the services can be construed as scientific or technical consultancy services. Learned Counsel would submit that there is no basis to hold that it would fall under the definiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
