2015 (1) TMI 1143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nical know-how in form of latest technology for making certain new types of bearings and upgradation in technology for better quality of the product under a licence agreement and for this, M/s. NEI paid royalty to the respondent. The total amount of royalty paid by M/s. NEI to the respondent during 2003-04 was Rs. 73,90,463/- . The department being of the view that the respondent have provided taxable services of Consulting Engineers in India, are liable to pay service tax on the same, as this service was taxable under Section 65(31) read with Section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994, issued a show cause notice to them for demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 5,91,237/- from them along with interest and also for imposition of penalty under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t was held that Finance Act, 1994 does not prescribe payment of service tax by a person who is a non-resident or is from outside India and does not have any office or establishment in India, as the provision of service tax are not applicable beyond the Indian territory. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed by the Revenue and the Revenue have filed a cross-objection. 2. None appeared for the respondent. Since a notice of hearing had been sent to the respondent well in time, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 21 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, so far as the respondent are concerned, the matter is being decided ex parte. 3. Heard Shri Yashpal, ld. Departmental Representative, who assa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ded by the respondent would not attract any service tax. In this regard, we find support from the Tribunal's judgment in the cases of Novinon Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 400 (Tribunal-Mum.), Biocon Ltd. v. CST, Bangalore reported in 2007 (7) S.T.R. 214 (Tri.-Bang.) and M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 481, wherein it has been held that transfer of technology under licence agreement against payment of royalty is not the Consulting Engineer's Service. Thus, on merit, the Department has no case. Moreover, we also fully agree with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s view that when the respondent service provider is a company incorporated in USA and operating from USA and does not has any branch or business establishment in....