2008 (9) TMI 349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....athan for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue. In the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the respondent M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (L&T) and vacated the order of the original authority demanding service tax of Rs. 6,44,144 applicable interest and imposing penalties on L&T under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994 ('the Act'). L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng before the Supreme Court in appeals filed by revenue. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The facts of the case are that under agreements entered into with its foreign collaborators, L&T received technical know-how and licence to use the same for the manufacture and sale of products specified in the agreements. Transfer of technical know-how for a consideration is sale of intellectual property. These....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....STAT), the Tribunal held that sale of right to use trade mark was a transaction in intangible property which involved no Engineering Consultancy. Also, in the case of Essel Propack Ltd v. CST [2006] 3 STT 161 (Mum.-CESTAT), the Tribunal held that know-how fee and royalty paid to holding company towards the right to use trade mark was merely a transaction in immovable property and not consultancy. ....