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>Defense organization wins service tax case on Russian aircraft technology transfer but liable for Malaysian engine repairs</h1> <h3>M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bhubaneswar</h3> M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bhubaneswar - TMI Issues Involved:1. Liability to pay service tax on license fees and incidental expenses for transfer of technical knowhow under 'Intellectual Property Services'.2. Liability to pay service tax on amounts received from a foreign company for repair/rectification of MIG Engines.Summary:Issue 1: Liability to pay service tax on license fees and incidental expensesThe appellant, a public sector company, was issued a Show Cause Notice seeking recovery of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 23,72,60,000/- for the financial years 2007-08 to 2011-12 u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, on the license fees and incidental expenses paid to the Russian company M/s. Rosboronexport for transfer of technical knowhow. The Department argued that these payments constituted 'Intellectual Property Services' and were subject to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism (RCM) as per Section 66A of the Act.The appellant contended that the technology transferred was confidential and not registered under any law, thus not qualifying as 'intellectual property right' u/s 65(55a) and 'intellectual property service' u/s 65(55b). They cited C.B.E.C.'s Circular No. 80/2010/2004-S.T. dated 17.09.2004, which excludes undisclosed information from the definition of IPR.The Tribunal found that the transfer of technology did not qualify as 'intellectual property right' within the meaning of Section 65(55a) and was not covered under 'intellectual property service' u/s 65(55b). They referenced previous Tribunal decisions, including SICPA India Pvt. Ltd. and Munjal Showa Ltd., which supported their view that unregistered technical knowhow does not attract service tax under IPR service.Issue 2: Liability to pay service tax on amounts received for repair/rectification of MIG EnginesThe appellant received Rs. 2,75,56,000/- from M/s. Setia Technologi SDN, BHD, Malaysia for repair and overhaul of MIG engines. The appellant claimed this as Export of Service, arguing it was not liable for tax. The Department contended that since the repairs were conducted in India, they were taxable u/s 65(105)(zzg) as 'management, maintenance or repair' service, and the provision of service in India breached Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, and Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005.The Tribunal agreed with the Department that the service was taxable as it was performed in India. However, they found the extended period of limitation inapplicable, as the appellant, being a government-owned entity, did not intentionally evade tax. They cited the Supreme Court case Continental Foundation Joint Venture Holding, which emphasized that suppression must be deliberate to justify the extended period. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's misclassification as Export of Service was a case of misinformation, not suppression.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling that the appellant was not liable for service tax on the transfer of technical knowhow and that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked for the repair services provided to the Malaysian company.(Order pronounced in the open court on 17.04.2024)
TaxTMI 