TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal allowed: Service tax waived for U.S. entity in technology transfer case.</h1> <h3>COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., GOA</h3> COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., GOA - 2006 (4) S.T.R. 536 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Stay application for dispensing pre-deposit of duty demanded by lower authority.2. Liability of service tax on services provided for transfer of technical know-how and technology.3. Interpretation of transfer of technology and royalty payments under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1944.The judgment pertains to a stay application filed by the appellant seeking to waive the pre-deposit of duty demanded by the lower authority. The Tribunal, comprising Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri K.K. Agarwal, decided to dispose of the appeal itself by waiving the pre-deposit with the consent of both sides, as the matter was found to be covered by a previous decision of the Tribunal.The appellant, a U.S.-based entity engaged in developing consumer brands of toothpaste, had entered into an agreement with an Indian company for providing technical know-how for manufacturing dental cream toothpaste. The lower authority demanded service tax amounting to &8377; 1,43,35,221/-, along with a penalty of &8377; 4,32,200/-, on the services provided. The appellant contended that the transfer of technical know-how and technology should not be liable to taxes, citing precedents such as the case of C.C., Chennai v. Velco Friction Material India Pvt. Ltd. and Turbo Energy Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise. These cases established that royalty payments for technology transfer were not considered payments for services under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1944.The learned Counsel for the Department of Revenue agreed that the royalty and technical assistance fees received by the appellant for technology transfer were not subject to service tax. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the cited precedents, concluded that the appellant's case was indeed covered by the CESTAT decisions referred to. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) demanding service tax and penalty was set aside.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
