TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant. - ST/77/05 - A/398/2011-WZB/C-I(CSTB) - Dated:- 23-8-2011 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Mr. Sahab Singh, JJ. Appearance: Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for the appellant Shri V.K. Agarwal, SDR for the respondent Per: Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) This is an appeal filed by the M/s. Kinetic Engineering Ltd. against Order-in-Appeal No. PI/53/2005 dated 18/01/2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles and were also rendering services in the field of engineering to their clients which fall within the category of consulting engineer. They have entered into agreements with their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iliary activity connected to the manufacture of the motor vehicle and they are not helping in solving any problem faced by the other persons. The main job of the agreement is supply of technical know-how and not rendering of any service. He further submitted that they are collecting some royalty from some of the clients which cannot be treated as value of the taxable service. He also argued that the extended period in the present case is not invocable and they are also not liable to the penalty. He relied upon the various decisions in this regard and also relied upon the latest decision of the CESTAT Mumbai bench in CCE vs. Mahindra Mahindra decided on 15.2.2011 vide order no. A/95/11/CSTB/C-I in which it was held that transfer of techno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Betts UK Ltd. vs. CCE, Goa 2006 (4) STR 433 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein it was held that transfer of technology and technical assistance by a foreign company to the Indian company against payment of royalty was not liable to service tax under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. We are inclined to follow this precedent of this Bench. A similar situation is noticed in Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Raigad 2007 (8) STR 282 (Tri.-Mumbai). 3. The question whether the respondent should pay service tax under the head 'consulting engineer service' in respect of the transactions in question for the period from 7.7.1997 to 15.8.2002 can be settled by following the precedent cited by the counsel in the absence of stay of operation of those decisions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
