TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eements, all dated October 27, 2005, with Beijing Sino-Steel Industries and Trade Group Corp (hereinafter referred to as "SSIT"), Beijing, China. The said plant simultaneously provides for production of power from the heat generated in the coke oven during conversion of coal to coke. 2.1. One of the five Agreements entered between the appellant and SSIT, being Contract No.HMCPCL/PROJ/003/002/FDR, was for supply of designs and drawings for manufacture of indigenous equipment and civil structure utilities and other services and for the purpose of erection, start-up commissioning and demonstration of performance test, etc. As per Clause 2.1 of this Agreement, the contract price for supply of the imported designs and drawing was USD 1 million. 2.2. In April, 2007 the jurisdictional Service Tax authorities visited the appellant's registered office at Kolkata and verified the records related to execution of Heat Recovery Coke Oven Project and found that the appellant was not paying service in respect of the imported designs and drawings supplied by SSIT, China, under reverse charge. The Department was of the view that supply of designs and drawings, by SSIT amounts to providing the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....protest' during the course of personal hearing before the Ld. Commissioner. 3.1 In support of their contention that the services received from SSIT are not liable to service tax under the category of "intellectual property right service", the appellant placed their reliance on the following decisions: (i) Munjal Showa Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex & ST, 2017(5) GSTL 145(T) (ii) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax 2024(4) TMI 726 - CESTAT KOLKATA (iii) Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. McLeod Russel (India) Ltd. 2023 (3) TMI 739-CESTAT KOLKATA (iv) Crest Speciality Resins Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE&C 2023(II) TMI 167- CESTAT AHMEDABAD (v) SICPA India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, 2017(9) TMI 1325-CESTAT KOLKATA 3.2 Accordingly, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allow their appeal. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 6. We observe that for the purpose of setting up the Heat Recovery Coke Oven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 28.02.2008 reproduced above, we observe that the appellant has paid service tax of Rs.48,78,395/- along with interest, with respect to import of design and drawings. According to them there is no liability of service tax on these services. As these designs and drawings were considered as goods under Customs Act, 1962 and customs duty has already paid on the importation of the goods, we hold that the demand of service tax to the extent of Rs.48,78,395/-in the impugned order, under the category of Intellectual property services", paid by the appellant under protest, is not sustainable and accordingly we set aside the same. 6.4. Out of the total service tax of Rs.91,90,101/- paid by the appellant, Rs.48,78,395/- has been paid under the category of "intellectual property services". Even though the appellant has claimed that the entire service tax of Rs.91,90,101/- has been paid under the category of "intellectual property service", we find that the claim of the appellant is not supported by any documentary evidence. On the contrary, the statement dated 06.07.2007, recorded from Shri. R. Balasubramian, reveals that the appellant has entered into contract with SSIT for various ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... HMC/F&A/0255 28th February, 2008 The Assistant Commissioner (SIV) Service Tax 9 Old Post Office Street 4th Floor Kolkata 700 001 Dear Sir, Re: Payment of Service Tax We refer to the various discussion and your letter dated 21/02/2008 on payment of service tax. Your letter dated 21/02/2008 states that an amount of Rs.75.72 lacs is payable. We had verified the payments at our end and had submitted the details of service tax paid by us vide our letter dated 201 February 2008. From the reconciliation of payments made by us and the amount of service tax payable as per your letter we have found that a tax liability of Rs.48,78,395/- has been considered by you, as payable by us. This amount relates to payments made by us to Beijing Sino-Steel Industry and Trade Group Corp (SSIT) on account of purchase of designs and drawings for manufacture of equipment, etc. in India. These designs and drawings were imported into India which have been considered as 'goods' under Customs Act, 1962 and classified under tariff sub-heading 4906 00 00. The bill of entry was prepared and assessed by the Customs authority. Since the import has been considered as goods, no service tax is pay....