9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Tushar Jarwal, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per. Rakesh Kumar Member (Technical)] - The point of dispute in this appeal of the Revenue is as to whether during 2001-02 to 2004-05 period, the Respondent, who in terms of an agreement for knowhow transfer and technical collaboration with M/s Matsushita Electric Industries Co. Ltd., Japan (M/s MEI), had paid royalty charges to MEI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hnical assistance' in any manner to a client in one or more discipline of engineering. (ii) Whatever amount has been paid by the Respondents to M/s MEI, Japan as royalty is nothing but technical assistance fee. 2.2 Shri Tushar Jarwal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Respondents, pleaded that the Respondent's agreement with MEI, Japan is an agreement for transfer of technology grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... areful consideration to the submissions from both the sides. From the agreement of the Respondent with MEI, Japan, it is clear that this is not an agreement for engineering consultancy, but an agreement for giving right to the Respondents to use certain technology, developed and patented by MEI, for manufacture of Dry battery cells in India, for which the Respondents have to pay royalty at an agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
