2014 (1) TMI 719

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....these appeals and the issue involved are more or less similar, they are taken up together for consideration and disposal. Appeal No. ST/242/05 3. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order passed by the lower appellate authority on the ground that the service received by the appellant by the appellant from abroad is classifiable under "Consulting Engineers Service" and therefore, royalty paid by the respondent, M/s. Kirloskar Brother Ltd. is liable to service tax under the category of "Consulting Engineer's Service". Accordingly, a notice was issued proposing recovery of service tax of Rs. 33,94,806/- for the period 2002-2003 along with interest thereon and also proposing to impose penalties. The adjudicating authority confir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alore III, reported in 2007 (6) STR 173 (Tri-Bang), this Tribunal held that transfer of drawings/designs and other technical data cannot be recovered under the definition of Consulting Engineer Service and hence, service tax demand is not sustainable. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 6.1 As has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Mitsui & Co. Ltd., Soliz Corporation and Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd cases (cited supra) designs and drawings are goods and if the respondent has received these designs and drawings from the foreign collaborator, the same are classifiable as goods under the Customs Tariff and the consideration paid for such designs and drawings is not leviable to service tax. Accord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s taken by the Tribunal in the case of BST Ltd. Vs. CCE, Cochin, 2006 (4) STR 40 (Tri-Bang), CCE & ST, Bangalore Vs. Molex (India) Ltd., - 2007 (7) STR 592 (Tri-Bang) & CCE, Bangalore Vs Mico Ltd., - 2008 (11) STR 28 (Tri-Bang) and therefore there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 10.1 In the instant case, the appellant received technical know-how from M/s. from M/s. Corrocoat Ltd., UK, for which they have paid royalty. The technical know-how was for the purpose of manufacture, use and sale of products in India by the respondent and the information provided was a relatable to the production process, format and technology. Accordingly, the appellant ....