Imported technology under approved foreign collaboration attracts cess, while delayed-payment interest is unavailable without express statutory authority.

An industrial concern that enters into an approved foreign collaboration to obtain technical know-how for its own project use is treated as importing technology, bringing the transaction within the Research and Development Cess Act, 1986 and attracting cess under Section 3(2). The challenge to the levy failed because the petitioner was found to fall within the statutory definition and the technology was brought in for its own execution of the contract. However, interest on delayed payment could not be recovered in the absence of an express statutory provision, so no interest could be directed. The Act did permit consideration of penalty under Section 9(2) for non-payment, subject to the statutory limit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was an industrial concern which had imported technology within the meaning of the Research and Development Cess Act, 1986, so as to attract cess under Section 3; (ii) Whether interest could be recovered on delayed payment of cess in the absence of an express statutory provision, and whether penalty could be considered under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was an industrial concern which had imported technology within the meaning of the Research and Development Cess Act, 1986, so as to attract cess under Section 3.

Analysis: The record showed that a foreign collaboration agreement had been approved in favour of the petitioner and that the petitioner had entered into the collaboration for obtaining technical know-how and related services required for execution of the contract. The Court rejected the contention that the technology was imported by the project owner rather than by the petitioner. It held that the contract was awarded to the petitioner, the collaboration agreement was entered into by the petitioner for the needed technical input, and the technology was brought in from Germany for the petitioner's own use in the project. On that basis, the petitioner fell within the definition of industrial concern and the transaction amounted to import of technology.

Conclusion: The petitioner was liable to cess under Section 3(2) of the Research and Development Cess Act, 1986, and the challenge to the levy failed.

Issue (ii): Whether interest could be recovered on delayed payment of cess in the absence of an express statutory provision, and whether penalty could be considered under the Act.

Analysis: The Court held that interest is recoverable only when the statute makes a substantive provision for it, and no such provision existed in the Research and Development Cess Act, 1986. Accordingly, interest could not be directed. At the same time, Section 9(2) empowered consideration of penalty for non-payment of cess, subject to the statutory limit.

Conclusion: Interest was not recoverable, but penalty under Section 9(2) could be considered in accordance with the Act.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, the cess demand was upheld, interest was declined for want of statutory authority, and the statutory penalty mechanism remained available.

Ratio Decidendi: Cess under the Act is attracted when the petitioner is an industrial concern that imports technology under an approved foreign collaboration, and interest on delayed statutory dues cannot be awarded unless the statute expressly authorises it.

---