AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 985
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I and pertains to the confirmation of demand of Rs. 18,42,99,652 and Rs. 33,36,28,515/- for the period from 1^st June 2007 to 30^th September 2010 and from 1^st October 2010 to 30^th September 2011 as provider of 'design services' taxable under section 65(105)(zzzzd) and in accordance with the definition of the services in section 65(36b) of Finance Act, 1994 . In addition to interest on recovery, detrimental consequences under section 70, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 was also ordered. 2. The appellant, who is a manufacturer of wind turbine generators, has three subsidiary companies situated in Germany and Netherland with whom product development and purchase agreement had been entered into. In accordance with these agreements ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. According to Learned Counsel for appellant, the decision of the Tribunal in Mitsui & Co Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise& Service Tax, Jamshedpur [2010 (18) STR 632 (Tri-Kolkata)] holds that '4. We find that in this case major portion of the demand is in respect of supply of imported designs and drawings. As per the Appellant the same were considered at the time of import of goods and bill of entry was filed which was duly assessed under the Customs Act. The same pleas raised in respect of the engineering and designs originating in India. We find that as the designs and drawings which are part of the contract are treated as goods by the Customs Authorities and were assessed under the Customs Act therefore the finding that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pvt Ltd, [final order no. A/52353 to 52333/2015-Cu (DB) dated 29^th July 2015] to contend that there is no prohibition of simultaneous levy under different taxing statutes. According to Learned Authorised Representative, the impugned order has categorically ousted the scope of levy as 'intellectual property service' owing to the existence of a more specific description in 'design service' taxable under section 65(105)(zzzzr) 6. On the other hand, Learned Counsel places reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [2017-TIOL-1983-CESTAT-DEL], Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II v. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd [2013-TIOL-1456-CESTAT-MUM] and on the decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....our and service. This division of contract under the amended law can be made only if the works contract involved a dominant intention to transfer the property in goods and not in contracts where the transfer in property takes place as an incident of contract of service. The *amendment, referred to above, has not empowered the State to indulge in a microscopic division of contracts involving the value of materials used incidentally in such contracts. mat is pertinent to ascertain in this connection is what was the dominant intention of the contract. Every contract, be it a service contract or otherwise, may involve the use of some material or the other in execution of the said contract. The State is not empowered by the amended law to impose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax on the licence fee paid by it to Oracle USA and therefore the value of the licence fee could not be added in the value of the media packs imported, we find that OIPL has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case o Imagic Creative Private Ltd. (supra) in support of this contention. The said judgment essentially laid down the ratio that payment of service tax and VAT are mutually exclusive. The said ratio laid down by the Supreme Court cannot be extrapolated to mean that customs duty and service tax are also mutually exclusive. In this regard it is pertinent to recall once again the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of CC, Chennai v. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that a "decision is an authority for what....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as paid the excise duty on the value of the product notwithstanding the services rendered It is in that context, they were contending that there cannot be levy of tax under two parliamentary legislations. However, the excise duty was levied on the aspect of manufacture and service tax is levied on the aspect of services rendered. Therefore, it will not amount to payment of tax twice. After contesting the matter before the Tribunal, the assessee has paid the service tax and interest thereon. It is in these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any willful attempt to evade the payment of tax on the part of the assessee. Moreover, the commissioning, installation and erection work was brought to service tax only from 1-7-2003 and now t....