TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n our view, the service provided by the respondent to M/s. NEI is not the service of Consulting Engineer but is Intellectual Property service, which became taxable w.e.f. 10-9-2004 under Section 65(105)(zzr) and, therefore, during the period of dispute, the service provided by the respondent would not attract any service tax. Such receipt of a taxable service by a person in India from a foreign service provider became taxable by making the service recipient as the person liable to pay the service tax with effect from 18-4-2006 by introducing Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 and hence, during the period of dispute prior to this date, the service tax could not be demanded even from the service recipient. We also find that the findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment being of the view that the respondent have provided taxable services of Consulting Engineers in India, are liable to pay service tax on the same, as this service was taxable under Section 65(31) read with Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994, issued a show cause notice to them for demand of service tax amounting to ₹ 5,91,237/- from them along with interest and also for imposition of penalty under Sections 75A, 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Addl. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 2-8-2002 by which the above-mentioned service tax demand was confirmed against the respondent along with interest and besides this, penalties were imposed on them under Sections 75A, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l has been filed by the Revenue and the Revenue have filed a cross-objection. 2. None appeared for the respondent. Since a notice of hearing had been sent to the respondent well in time, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 21 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, so far as the respondent are concerned, the matter is being decided ex parte. 3. Heard Shri Yashpal, ld. Departmental Representative, who assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal in the Revenue s appeal and emphasized that the respondent, who had provided the taxable service of Consulting Engineer to a person in India, would be liable to pay the service tax on the amount received from the service recipient in terms of Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been held that transfer of technology under licence agreement against payment of royalty is not the Consulting Engineer s Service. Thus, on merit, the Department has no case. Moreover, we also fully agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) s view that when the respondent service provider is a company incorporated in USA and operating from USA and does not has any branch or business establishment in India, and when the service has been provided by the respondent from abroad, no service tax can be demanded from the respondent. Such receipt of a taxable service by a person in India from a foreign service provider became taxable by making the service recipient as the person liable to pay the service tax with effect from 18-4-2006 by introducing S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
