TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturers of Turbo Charger and parts thereof (Heading 84.14 of the CETA Schedule). They entered into a technical collaboration with M/s. Aktiengesellschaft kuhnie koop Kausch (M/s. KKK, for short) whereunder they were liable to pay royalty to M/s. KKK @ 3% on the sale price of the licensed product in respect of which technical know-how was provided by M/s. KKK. During 2001-2002, the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 400 (Tri.-Mumbai). (2) Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 481 (Tri.-Mumbai) 3. The learned JDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and, further, points out that transfer of technology has since been recognized as a taxable service in the form of Engineering Consultancy . 4. After examining the records and the submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stant case, it is not in dispute that transfer of technology by M/s. KKK to the appellants was not a transaction in which intangible property was involved. Hence the ratio of the decision in the case of Aviat Chemicals (supra) as also the decision in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. 5. In the result, the demand of Service Tax on royalty paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
