2008 (7) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... thorized Representative DR, for the Respondent. [Order Per. Rakesh Kumar Member (T)]- 1. The point of dispute in this case is whether the Agreement between the Appellant and M/s Siemens A.G., Germany, granting the Appellant a non-transferable, non-exclusive licence to manufacture certain products in India by using the technology developed by M/s Siemens, and consideration for which is payable to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd M/s Siemens, it is clear that it is an agreement for transfer of right to use patented technology and brand name and not engineering consultancy and therefore it will not attract any service tax. The IPR service was not taxable during the period of dispute. In support of his argument that an agreement for transfer of patented technology and technical collaboration is not engineering consultancy .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r that the transfer of technology is covered by the Engineering Consultancy Services. 3. We have given careful consideration to the submissions from both the sides. The issue as to whether a particular activity is covered by the definition of a particular taxable service, cannot be decided on the basis of an exemption notification. We find that the issue involved in this case stands settled by a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X