Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 5]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd vs Cce Chennai on 6 February, 2008

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI

Appeal No.S/63/2005

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.13/2005 (M-ST) dated 29.4.2005  passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.G.CHACKO, Member (Judicial)


1.	Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT	 (Procedure) Rules, 1982?					      :

2.	Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the 
	CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?				      	      :

3.	Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
	the Order?								      :

4.	Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
	Authorities?							      :

	
Sundaram Brake Linings Ltd.
Appellant/s

         
       Versus
     

CCE Chennai 
Respondent/s

Appearance:

S/Sh. R.Ravhavan & M.Kannan, Advocates Shri N.J.Kumaresh, SDR For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Mr. P.G.Chacko, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing : 6.2.2008 Date of decision : 6.2.2008 Final Order No.____________ The short question arising in this case is whether service tax is leviable in the category of Consulting Engineers Service on the technical know-how fee paid by the appellants to their foreign collaborators for the period 28.2.99 to 31.3.03. This issue is no longer res integra as it stands settled in favour of the assessee by a line of decisions of this Tribunal. One of these decisions cited by ld.counsel is contained in Final Order No.699/05 dt. 3.5.05 in appeal No.S/38/04 (Turbo Energy Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai-III).

2. Following the consistent view taken by this Tribunal, I set aside the impugned order, wherein service tax was demanded from the appellants in respect of transfer of technical know-how for the above period, and allow this appeal.

(Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 6.2.2008) (P.G.CHACKO) MEMBER (J) gs 3 2