Consistent tax treatment bars contrary refund claim over technical know-how payments treated as consulting engineer's service.

Refund of service tax paid on royalty for transfer of technical know-how was denied because the appellant's own conduct showed it had consistently registered and paid tax as a recipient of consulting engineer's service during the relevant period. On the same contractual facts, it could not later take a contrary stand for part of the period and claim that no such taxable service had been received. The prior findings on limitation and unjust enrichment had already become final, leaving only the character of the service under the agreement. The authorities distinguished cases where assessees had maintained a consistent position, and the rejection of the refund claim was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of service tax paid on royalty amounts for the period 01/01/2004 to 09/09/2004 on the plea that the foreign collaborator's transfer of technical know-how was not consulting engineer's service, and whether the appellant was precluded from taking a contrary stand by its prior conduct.

Analysis: The earlier findings on limitation and unjust enrichment had already attained finality. The only surviving question was the nature of the service for which royalty was paid under the agreement with the foreign collaborator. The appellant had consistently registered itself and paid service tax as recipient of consulting engineer's service during the relevant period and had continued the same course even after 09/09/2004 without seeking refund for that later period. On the agreement and the appellant's own conduct, the payment was treated as consideration for technical assistance rendered by the foreign collaborator. The appellant was therefore not permitted to contend, for a part of the same period, that no consulting engineer's service had been received. The authorities relied on by the appellant were distinguished on the basis that those cases involved a consistent stand by the assessees, unlike the present case.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not sustainable, and the classification of the service as consulting engineer's service was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish entitlement to refund, and the order rejecting the claim was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxpayer who has consistently treated a transaction as taxable service and paid service tax accordingly is estopped, on the same contractual facts, from later claiming refund by taking a contrary stand for a part of the same period.

---