The Commissioner Of Service Tax vs M/S Skf India Ltd on 4 March, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4" DAY OF MARCH, 201dF_
PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANJUNATH%' T

AND

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE Bfv. NAGAHATHNAVT'

c.E.A.N¢fi:;200T.
BETWEEN:

The Commissioner of Service Taxjf§_F

Service Tax Commissiofieratejo V ,

No.16, S.P.Com§lex}T }'" "'d*d<-g

Lalbagh Road;_£ l"j,";_:"[H

Bangalore¥37§dg l'_T}Afi"V "EV .. APPELLANT

(ByHAdvoCdteaérilcdshashikantha)
AND:

M/s SHF_Ind1a'Etd.;
~ Plot No 2, Bofimasendra
. Indfistrial Area,
7,Hosur Road; '_
Hangaloiej f.» ,. RESPONDENT

(By Hdvooate Sri K S Ravishankar)

'[ This CEA is filed under Sec 35G of the Central

d"oExcrse Act, 1944 to set aside the final Order
V Afi0ul061w63 dated 15.6 2006 passed by CESTAT, SZB,
"v_ Bangalore vide Annexure~B, only so far it relates to

$5



respondent herein and to restore the orderminm
original No.6/2005 dated 28.l1.20056 passed. by the
Commissioner of Service Tax, Service Tax
Commissionerate, Bangalore vide Annexure--A,,"gh_

This Appeal is coming on for final hearing this
day, MANJUNATH J. delivered the following: A." i T'

J U D G M 

Revenue has come up in this appeal challenging

the legality and correctness ¢f the order passed by

the CESTAT in Final Order No lQSl%§3.dated 15.6.2006
wherein the appeal tiled by the iespondentmassessee
has been allowed hfi the tribanal by setting aside the

order passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax.

2. Facts

lleadingigtotfthis case are as hereunder:

3The assessee entered into an agreement with M/s AB SKF

Sweden. for aavailing the technical knowmhow and

‘d~ _technical ‘ assistance and during the relevant

Vr,_assessment: year’ it paid. Rs.4,20,85,65l/~ as service

” charges to a foreign collaborator. On the ground that

V_service tax was not paid, show cause notice was got

i”u_issued on 26.8.2003 demanding service tax, interest,

2%’

penalty etc. and thereafter an Ordermin~Original
No.6/2005 dated 28.11.2005 was passed fmby the

Commissioner of Service Tax confirming the demand made

in the show cause notice. Aggrievedi”byW the “ordg;

passed by the Commissioner of; Serv-ice’7’I’a_x,u»_asseV:’5se.e

filed an appeal before ;CESTAT Wwhicbfi came? to gbe
allowed. Being aggrieved by the same}–@resent appeal
is filed raising the follofiing”subs;antial question of

law:

“Whether;dfifing the relevant period, in view of
the Board”sgf”Circnlarf» dated 2.7.1997 the
technical; assistance pand’ technical know–how
received’ by _the_ respondent from a foreign
company did not_constitnte taxable service viz.,
ConsnltinglEngineer~Service?”

3. We have heard the counsel for the parties.

§;’.tConnselg»for the appellant submits that though

‘i.4_consentihasibeen given by the Commissioner before the

hv_CE$TAT,.same was not the ground for the CESTAT to

‘”_consider the case of the assessee in its favour.

l”_Accoxding to him, question that arises for the

h”._consideration of this court in this appeal is pending

3’

before us is that SLP is dismissed at the time of
admission, same cannot be a «ground to disfidss the
appeal of the revenue and that the ap§ealdbof~ the

revenue has to be considered again. Actording to us,

Bombay High Court in detail lhasf_consideredd.theb-

relevant amendments and notifications which has been

affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after hearing

the counsel for the fiarties.i*;

6. Following tbe_judgment Qt the Eombay High Court
which has been aé§;:¢\§ by the hon’ble Supreme Court,
we are of the view that substantial question of law
arises Vin ‘this iafipeal_ is” required to be answered

against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

i;7:”._hccdrdingly, the appeal is dismissed.

ss/s
§§§G£

sé/fi_
Essfi

‘”*-_Ha/150310