https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275414 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant, a PSU engaged in technology transfer with a Russian entity. It held that the demand for service tax under "Consulting Engineer Services" was unjustified as the payments were for technology transfer under an intergovernmental agreement, not for consulting engineering services. The penalties under Section 78 and Section 77 (1) (a) of the Finance Act were set aside due to the absence of fraud or willful misstatement. The Tribunal emphasized that mala fide intent could not be attributed to the PSU, ultimately leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential benefits. en-us Thu, 02 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Apr 2019 12:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275414 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant, a PSU engaged in technology transfer with a Russian entity. It held that the demand for service tax under "Consulting Engineer Services" was unjustified as the payments were for technology transfer under an intergovernmental agreement, not for consulting engineering services. The penalties under Section 78 and Section 77 (1) (a) of the Finance Act were set aside due to the absence of fraud or willful misstatement. The Tribunal emphasized that mala fide intent could not be attributed to the PSU, ultimately leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential benefits. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 02 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275414