TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, has held that transfer of technologies does not come within the ambit of Consulting Engineer. The findings recorded by him at pg. 15 are reproduced herein below "I have gone through the records of the case and submissions made by the appellants in the appeal during the course of hearing. Regarding the allegation that the appellants have paid royalty fees to their holding company viz. Molex Inc., U.S.A. for use of technology provided by M/s. Molex Inc., I find that the amount paid was for transfer of technology and does not involve rendering of advice or consultancy. In the case of M/s. Navinon Limited v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 400, the Hon'ble Tribunal (Mumbai) held that royalty payment for use of tec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if any amount of pocket expenses, such as hotel bills, air tickets, etc. are separately reimbursed by the client then deduction towards such expenses can be given, provided documentary proof to that effect is produced. I find that the appellants are only generalizing the whole issue without providing the specific details of the deductions they are seeking. I am of the view that without the documentary evidence and the nature of expenditure claimed on deduction from the gross amount, no deduction can be permitted. Therefore, the order of the lower authority on this count does not call for any interference. Regarding the claim of the appellants that service tax had been enhanced only from 14-5-2003 and that the rate of service tax applicabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77. 7. The penalty under Section 78 is reduced from Rs. 21,53,631/- to Rs. 8,32,391 /-." 2. We have heard both sides in the matter. The issue pertaining to receipt of royalty for technical know-how from foreign collaborator has been held to be not coming within the category of Consulting Engineer. The Tribunal, in the case of BST Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin - 2006 (4) S.T.R. 40 (Tri.-Bang.), has followed the judgment of 5 rulings which are in assessees' favour. The finding recorded in Paras 4 to 6 of BST Ltd. is noted herein below. "4. The learned Advocate urged that this issue has already been covered by large number of decisions of the Tribunals including this Tribunal. She relied on the following decisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the demand. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The main issue to be decided is whether the services rendered in India would amount to services of a 'consulting engineer' as per the Finance Act, 1994. The learned Advocate cited a large number of decisions and in all these cases, it has been categorically held that technical know-how received from the foreign collaborator would not amount to the services of 'consulting engineer.' Since the facts of the present case are similar to the case laws cited by the learned Advocate, we are of the view that these services would not be liable for payment of Service Tax, during the relevant period in the category of 'consulting engineers'. Since the basic issue stands settled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
