<?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>2009 (2) TMI 34 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32712</link>
    <description>Amounts paid under a genuine joint venture arrangement for sharing technical know-how were not chargeable to service tax as consulting engineering service. The arrangement was treated as a mutual commercial collaboration for manufacture of agreed goods, not a contract for engineering consultancy. The record did not show that the foreign collaborator was an engineering consultancy firm or that it was commercially rendering taxable consulting engineering service. The Revenue was required to strictly prove that the payment represented consideration for such taxable service, and that burden was not discharged. Mere use of technical expertise in the joint venture was insufficient, so the demand was unsustainable and the appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71350" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 34 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32712</link>
      <description>Amounts paid under a genuine joint venture arrangement for sharing technical know-how were not chargeable to service tax as consulting engineering service. The arrangement was treated as a mutual commercial collaboration for manufacture of agreed goods, not a contract for engineering consultancy. The record did not show that the foreign collaborator was an engineering consultancy firm or that it was commercially rendering taxable consulting engineering service. The Revenue was required to strictly prove that the payment represented consideration for such taxable service, and that burden was not discharged. Mere use of technical expertise in the joint venture was insufficient, so the demand was unsustainable and the appeals were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32712</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>