TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chnical know-how from M/s. Samlip Industrial Co Limited, Korea on 6-5-1997 under an Agreement concluded with the foreign company. The consideration for this service, known as royalty, was paid on 5-9-02. The lower authorities have demanded Service Tax on this amount from the appellants. Hence this appeal. 2. Ld. Consultant for the appellants submits that, at the time when the above service was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants, classified as Consulting Engineer s Service, no such tax was payable by the appellants inasmuch as, as on the date of receipt of the service, the service recipient was not liable to pay the tax. Finally, ld. Consultant submits that the challenge against the above demand of Service Tax is squarely supported by the Tribunal s decision in CCE, Noida v. Matsushita TV Audio India Ltd. [2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Engineer s Service nor transfer of Intellectual Property was a taxable service. 4. For the reasons noted above, the appellants are not liable to pay Service Tax on the royalty paid by them to the Korean Company for the service rendered by the latter in May, 1997. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
