Tribunal overturns service tax demand for Technology Transfer Agreement, ruling appellants not providing consultancy services.

The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal demanding service tax for a Technology Transfer Agreement, ruling that the appellants, as manufacturers, did not provide Scientific or Technical Consultancy services as per the Finance Act. The Tribunal found the Revenue's claim unsustainable, noting the appellants' lack of qualification as technocrats or scientific institutions. The appeal was allowed, overturning the demand for service tax and penalty upheld by the Original Authority and Commissioner (Appeals).

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal regarding Service Tax on Technology Transfer Agreement.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against Order-in-Appeal No.171-ST/LKO/2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing Electrical Conductors and registered for Service Tax, were alleged to have received consideration from a Technology Transfer agreement with another company. The Revenue claimed this consideration was for 'Scientific and Technical Consultancy' service. A show cause notice was issued, demanding recovery of Rs. 8,75,500 as service tax for the period from May 2008 to September 2010. The Original Authority upheld the demand and penalty, despite the appellants' argument that they were manufacturers, not scientists or technocrats. The Commissioner (Appeals) also affirmed the Order-in-Original. The appellant contended that they did not provide scientific or technical consultancy services as per the definition under Section 65(92) of the Finance Act, 1994. They cited precedents where it was held that manufacturers do not provide such services. The appellant had paid Rs. 2,57,500 as service tax to the exchequer, though the invoice did not specify it as scientific or technical consultancy service. The amount of Rs. 6,18,000 plus interest was deposited based on the Revenue's audit team insistence.

The learned Assistant Commissioner argued that the appellants invoiced Rs. 25 lakhs to the other company, including service tax, and therefore could not retain the tax collected merely based on classification grounds. The Tribunal examined the records and submissions. It noted that the appellants did not qualify as scientists, technocrats, or science and technology institutions or organizations, hence not meeting the definition of Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service. The show cause notice's contention that the appellants provided such services was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.

---