TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod 2002 to 2003. 2. The appellant's contention is that they did not come within the category of Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services (STC) . They are leading pharmaceutical company in India and they are engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products and diagnostics in India. They develop technology for the manufacture of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (AP which they have sold on valuable consideration to their clients M/s. Ranbaxy. There is no service provided therein continuously in terms of the agreement but it is a complete sale of the technology on consideration, therefore, they did not come within the said category. The learned Commissioner has deferred with them by rendering findings in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stries Ltd. v. CCE, Raigad as reported in 2007 (8) S.T.R. 282 (Tri.) = 2007-TIOL-399- CESTAT-MUM. - 4. The learned JDR relies on para 13 of the impugned order and distinguishes the judgments cited by the Counsel. He also files written submissions on behalf of the Department. It is his submission that the impugned order is justified and correct. It is stated in the written submission that as per the Agreements entered into by M/s. Matrix with M/s. Ranbaxy, M/s. Matrix are required to develop technology for manufacture of 21 products by non-infringing process. M/s. Matrix have developed on an exclusive and immediate basis non-infringing manufacturing process or technology and provided all such technology and technical documentations to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o sale of the technology developed by the assessee but what was rendered was only service in terms of the definition of the term Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services. The learned JDR persuade us to accept the terms of the definition which contemplates that when there is technical assistance in any manner, then, it should be considered as service. Further, we find that the technology was developed for manufacture of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients and was sold as such with all the rights and technical documentations. The appellants do not have any right on the technical information sold to M/s. Ranbaxy Ltd. It is not the case that they received any commission for the services rendered in the form of consultation fee. This is a case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
