2005 (5) TMI 355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spondent. [Order]. - The appellants are manufacturers of Turbo Charger and parts thereof (Heading 84.14 of the CETA Schedule). They entered into a technical collaboration with M/s. Aktiengesellschaft kuhnie koop & Kausch (M/s. KKK, for short) whereunder they were liable to pay royalty to M/s. KKK @ 3% on the sale price of the licensed product in respect of which technical know-how was provid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wing decisions : (1)     Navinon Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 400 (Tri.-Mumbai). (2)     Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 481 (Tri.-Mumbai) 3. The learned JDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and, further, points out that transfer of technology has since been recognized as a taxa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it had been held that no consultancy or advice was involved in transfer of intangible property. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that transfer of technology by M/s. KKK to the appellants was not a transaction in which intangible property was involved. Hence the ratio of the decision in the case of Aviat Chemicals (supra) as also the decision in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. (supra) are squ....