2026 (5) TMI 578

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore and Order-in-Appeal No.303/2014 dated 21.04.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Unit-II, Bangalore. 2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture and overhaul of aircraft engines and their parts that are used in the aircrafts of the Indian Navy, Airforce and Indian Army. The only issue that survives in both the appeals is that whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the license fee/royalty paid towards transfer of manufacturing rights and technology for manufacture of Adour Mark Engines and AJT Hawk Machines. Observing that the appellant has paid license fee/royalty for transfer of technology, the services are to be classified under the category ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... All.) 4. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned orders and submitted that the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the category of Intellectual Property Right Services (IPRs). 5. Heard both sides. The agreement 01.12.1978 between Rolls Royce Turbomeca Ltd. (RRTL) and the President of India represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Defense (Production) is with regard to proceed with British Aerospace concerning the supply and manufacture under licence in India of the Jaguar International Aircraft. As per the license, RRTL is willing to make available certain manufacturing rights and technology in respect of Adour RT 172-58(Mark 811) versi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Siliguri 2013 (30) S.T.R. 630 (Tri. - Kol.) in support of his stance. However, we are of the view that it would be inappropriate to rely on the said order as it is merely an interim order and cannot be taken as laying down any enunciation in law and is bereft of any precedent value. 9.2 It may further be pointed out that this Tribunal in the case of SICPA India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus., C.Ex. & S.T., Siliguri 2018 (15) G.S.T.L. 375 (Tri. - Kol.) held that technical knowhow provided by a foreign company to an Indian company under a licence for manufacture of goods for consideration of Royalty equal to a percentage of net sale price of the goods, was nowhere registered/patented in India as an IPR service and therefore, the r....