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>Tribunal grants stay on Service Tax for Royalty on technical know-how, citing strong prima facie case</h1> <h3>National Peroxice Ltd. Versus CCE, Thane-I</h3> National Peroxice Ltd. Versus CCE, Thane-I - 2006 (1) S.T.R. 23 (Tri - Mumbai) Issues:1. Application for stay from the implementation of the impugned order made by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai-IV regarding alleged contravention of provisions of Section 68 and 70 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, related to non-payment of Service Tax and failure to file required Returns for the amount paid under the head of 'Royalty' for technical know-how.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Hydrogen Peroxide, was alleged by the Department to have contravened provisions related to Service Tax payment and Returns filing. The appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 39,53,565/- as Royalty to foreign companies for technical know-how. The appellant contended that the agreements were entered into before the enforcement of Service Tax, making it not applicable. Additionally, the appellant argued that Royalty paid based on a percentage of sale proceeds did not attract Service Tax. The appellant relied on previous decisions supporting the non-liability of Service Tax on Royalty for technical know-how.The Departmental Representative argued that the service provided by Chemical Engineering Consultancy attracted Service Tax, as stated in the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had established a strong prima facie case based on relevant case law supporting the non-liability of Service Tax on Royalty for technical know-how. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the pre-deposit order and stayed its recovery until the appeal was disposed of, considering the appellant's arguments and legal precedents cited.In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the stay application, acknowledging the appellant's arguments regarding the non-liability of Service Tax on Royalty for technical know-how, supported by relevant case law. The Tribunal found the appellant had a strong prima facie case and therefore dismissed the pre-deposit order, staying its recovery pending the appeal's disposal.
TaxTMI 