TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shyel Trehan with Amit Sibal and Raugrav Mitra, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Amit Jain, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per: M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - We heard both sides extensively on the stay petition. 2. The applicant who became the successor in business to M/s. Du Pont, a manufacturer of polyethylene and they hold by inheritance the patent for processes technology associated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 1994. 3. We have been taken through the supplementary license agreement by the learned Advocate for the appellant. He submits that the applicant is basically a patent holder and not a consulting engineering firm. They have transferred the necessary technology/processes (for which they hold patent) to increase the capacity from 160 million kgs. to 210 million kgs. per annum. As in any case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lier period the same service cannot be treated as consulting engineering service. 4. He also relies on several judgments of the Tribunal to support the contention that agreements for transfer of technology/know-how can not considered to fall under category of consulting engineer, in spite of certain components of services like technical assistance, training being imparted in pursuance of the ag....