Technology transfer distinguished from consulting engineering services, making the duty demand and penalty unsustainable.

Technology transfer, where coupled with consideration for the transfer, was treated as distinct from consulting engineering services. On the facts and the contractual obligations between the parties, the appellate authority's view that the arrangement was one of technology transfer was accepted. As a result, the activity was held not to fall within consulting engineering services, and the duty demand and penalty were found unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the activity in question constituted consulting engineering services so as to sustain the duty demand and penalty, or whether it was a case of transfer and receipt of technology.

Analysis: The finding that the relationship between the parties was one of technology transfer was accepted. Technology transfer coupled with receipt of consideration for such transfer was held to be distinguishable from consulting engineering services. On the facts and the obligations between the parties, the view taken by the appellate authority was found correct.

Conclusion: The activity did not amount to consulting engineering services, and the duty demand and penalty were not sustainable.

---