Appeal successful in technical know-how transfer tax case.

The appeal was filed against an order demanding service tax and penalties for transferring technical know-how and granting a license. The appellant argued that such transfer does not amount to consulting engineer's service, citing relevant case law. The Member (T) agreed, setting aside the order and allowing the appeal by Robert Bosch. The legal position established through cited cases supported the conclusion that technical know-how transfer does not fall under consulting engineer's service, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order demanding service tax and imposing penalty
- Whether transfer of technical know-how amounts to consulting engineer's service

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) demanding service tax from the appellants and imposing penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner upheld the original authority's decision, which demanded service tax and imposed penalties on the appellants for receiving a lump sum payment in exchange for technical know-how transfer and license grant to manufacture automobile horns.

2. The appellant argued that transfer of technical know-how does not fall under the category of consulting engineer's service, citing various decisions to support this claim. The appellant provided copies of decisions such as Navinon Ltd. v. CCE, Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Shore to Shore Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CCE, Ispat Industries Ltd v. CCE, and Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd. v. CST to strengthen their argument.

3. The legal position on whether transfer of technical know-how amounts to consulting engineer's service was carefully considered. The Member (T) noted that the settled legal position, as supported by the case law cited by the appellant, is that transfer of technical know-how does not constitute consulting engineer's service. Consequently, the impugned order demanding service tax and penalties was deemed unsustainable in law. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the appeal filed by the appellant, Robert Bosch, was allowed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved in the appeal and the legal reasoning behind setting aside the Commissioner's order based on the established legal position regarding the nature of technical know-how transfer in relation to consulting engineer's service.

---