TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mahajan for the Respondent. ORDER P.G. Chacko, Judicial Member - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that, in adjudication of a show-cause notice issued in the year 2006, the Commissioner of Central Excise has demanded service tax of over Rs. 64 lakhs from the appellant for the period 2001-2003 under the head "Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service" and has imposed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PL was made under an agreement dated 4-5-1998. The learned counsel has referred to the relevant provisions of this agreement and has submitted that there is nothing herein to show that the appellant was rendering "scientific or technical consultancy service" to M/s. DTPL during the period of dispute. The learned counsel has also relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Navinon Ltd. v. CCE ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferring trade name to their customer and not any formula or formulations and, therefore, there is no merit in their contention that they were rendering only 'Intellectual Property Right Service'. 4. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel has also pointed out that the lower authority subsequently issued a corrigendum to the order passed by it. It is submitted that extensive changes were made in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a "Technocrat". This finding appears to be unsupported by evidence. On the other hand, there are a line of decisions to the effect that transfer of technical know-how, brand name, etc., is covered by 'Intellectual Property Right Service' introduced on 10-9-2004 for the purpose of levy of service tax. The judicial authorities are also unanimous on the point that such transactions would not be exi....