<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2005 (12) TMI 560 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173595</link>
    <description>Royalty and technical know-how fees paid to a foreign collaborator were held not liable to service tax as consulting engineering services where the agreement, read as a whole, showed a transfer of know-how and technology rather than an identifiable consulting engineer-client arrangement. The Tribunal found no reliable evidence that the royalty represented consideration for taxable services, and the show cause notice and appeal did not establish any quantified service element distinct from the royalty payments. Technical clauses in the agreement were insufficient to attract service tax on the facts proved, so the demand and penalties were not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397852" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 560 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173595</link>
      <description>Royalty and technical know-how fees paid to a foreign collaborator were held not liable to service tax as consulting engineering services where the agreement, read as a whole, showed a transfer of know-how and technology rather than an identifiable consulting engineer-client arrangement. The Tribunal found no reliable evidence that the royalty represented consideration for taxable services, and the show cause notice and appeal did not establish any quantified service element distinct from the royalty payments. Technical clauses in the agreement were insufficient to attract service tax on the facts proved, so the demand and penalties were not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173595</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>