TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 861
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kanpur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on perusal of Balance Sheet of M/s Gas Authority of India Ltd., U.P. (in short GAIL) for the financial year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 it was noticed that GAIL had incurred expenditure in foreign currency under the head 'Technical Consultancy & Engineering' amounting to Rs. 4,26,26,000 and Rs. 8,67,44,000 during the year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 respectively. On further enquiry, it was revealed that these expenses were incurred by them in connection with consultancy charges relating to engineering and were paid to foreign companies in foreign exchange acting as consulting engineer for GAIL who do not have office in India. Statement of Shri Sachi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal. Appellants have filed the present appeals before this Tribunal. Since issue is the same, these appals are being taken up together. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that transfer of patented technology is not classifiable under Consulting Engineer Service and more appropriately classifiable under Intellectual Property Right Service. He submits that as per agreement with GAIL, appellants are owners of patent right in relation to Sclairtech Linear Polythene Technology and said technology is given to GAIL under license. Reading of various provisions of agreement dated 15.2.93 and 10.9.2001 subject matter is transfer of technology, perusal of supplementary agreement would indicate appellants continue to hold patents a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its that both Show Cause Notices are time-barred as extended period of 5 years cannot be invoked in this case and consequently penalty under Section 78 cannot be imposed on them. 7. Ld. Advocate submitted the written submissions giving details of the argument along with list of case laws relied on by them on issue of classification of service as Consulting Engineering Service, time-bar and imposition of penalty. 8. The ld. Additional Commissioner (A.R.) appearing for the Revenue submits that the agreement in question is in respect of expansion of the plant of M/s GAIL and is an independent and all comprehensive agreement. The schedule B-2 of the agreement clearly indicates that the appellant as engineering firm has rendered consultancy an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by CBEC, New Delhi vide its Circular No. B/43/5/97-TRU dated 2.7.1997. I find that the learned adjudicating authority has appropriately classified the services under the category of Consulting Engineering Services in view of findings which have been discussed in detailed in impugned order. Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. 615 dated 31.12.2010 has reproduced the finding of Order-in-Appeal 300 dated 29.8.2007. 10. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding as to how the service is classifiable under 'consulting Engineering Service', particularly when appellant raised the issue before him that they are not engineering firm. We find that as per definition of 'Consulting Engineer' under Section 65(13):- Consulting Enginee....