9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has taken place is of sale and the consideration is mentioned under two Heads one being Purchase Consideration on a slump price basis and the second being royalty for use of technical know-how for the period 01.07.1997 to 30.06.2000. There is no mention of any Consultancy Service to be rendered by the appellants. That being the case, it will be incorrect to levy service tax on the same. Tribunal in the case of Supreme Industries Ltd. [ 2013 (3) TMI 739 - CESTAT MUMBAI] held that consideration received towards the transfer of technical knowhow cannot be held to be consideration for the services rendered as Consulting Engineer. The impugned order passed in revision is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed. - HON BLE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case back to the Original Authority for de novo proceedings; Order-in- Original dated 20.09.2011, in the de novo proceedings, is the impugned order. 2. Ms. Krati Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that in terms of the MOU, there was only a transfer of know-how and no consultation was involved; the appellant has only provided M/s MGBPL J.V only the right to use the technical know-how against the consideration received. She submits that the appellant is not a professionally qualified engineer and therefore, the transaction cannot be taxed under Section 65(13) of the Finance Act, 1994. She relies on the following cases: Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. CCE ST, Bhopal 2017 (4) G.S.T.L.. 221 (Trl.-Del.) TI Metal Forming vs. Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfer of business as a going concern and as such, no service tax can be levied. She also submits that the Order-in-Revision dated 29.11.2006 is barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the permissible period of two years. She also submits that the demand is barred by limitation as extended period cannot be invoked. 4. Shri Harish Kapoor, learned Authorized Representative for the Department, reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the impugned order records the fact that during the course of audit, it was observed that M/s MGBPL had paid royalty fee and noncompetition fee to the appellants for the use of technical know-how developed by the noticee. On going throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... echnology process. The Tribunal had occasioned to examine similar issues involving technical collaboration and transfer of intellectual property right from foreign companies to Indian recipient. It was held that when the agreement is for transfer of exclusive/nonexclusive technical know-how the consideration received cannot be taxed under consultancy service. Reference can be made to the decisions in Yamaha Motors (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-IV (Faridabad) reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 665 (Tri. - Del.) = 2005 (186) E.L.T. 161 (Tri.), CCE Cus. Nashik v. Larsen Toubro Ltd. reported in 2015 (37) S.T.R. 156 (Tri. - Mumbai), CST, Mumbai v. Leibert Corporation reported in 2014 (33) S.T.R. 161 (Tri. - Mumbai) and CST, Delhi v. Suzuki Motor Corporat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
