ORDER
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. M/s. Panasonic AVC Networks India Co. Ltd., got into a collaboration agreement in 1993 with M/s. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd. Japan in order to obtain technical know-how and training for the purpose of manufacturing Colour T.V. and Audio products. In terms of the agreement, in addition to lumpsum payment of Rs. 2 lakh US $, the Indian company was to make payment at the rate of 3% of the value of the goods produced towards royalty. The subject matter of the present appeals is the service tax demand on this 3% running royalty for the period 1-3-99 to 31-3-2001.
2. The contention of the appellant is that the transfer of technical know-how and training in terms of the contract was over and production had started in 1996, well before the imposition of service tax on 7-7-97 in regard to “consulting engineering” service. Learned Counsel for the appellants has emphasized that since the levy was not retrospective in nature, the demand is not sustainable at all. Same defence had been taken before the lower authorities. The Commissioner (Appeals) held “that the date on which service was provided is not relevant in the context of service taxation because the evidence of provision of service tax lies in the payment for the services as agreed upon by the provider and the consumer”.
3. We have perused the records and heard both sides. “Consulting engineer” and “Taxable Service” have been defined in the Finance Act as under :-
‘Consulting Engineer’ means any professionally qualified engineer or an engineering firm who, either directly or indirectly, renders any advice, consultancy or technical assistance in any manner to a client in one or more disciplines of engineering.
“Taxable Service” means any service provided to a client, by a consulting engineer in relation to advice, consultancy or technical assistance in any manner in one or more disciplines of engineering.
It is clear from the definition of taxable service that providing of service is the taxable event. The taxable event takes place in time and place. In the present case, admittedly, transfer of technical know-how took place well before the levy was introduced. Since the time when service was provided is the relevant factor, no levy was attracted in the present case. It is another matter whether the transaction between the parties was a transaction between a client and a consulting engineer. The Commissioner was clearly in error in holding that date of payment for service is the relevant factor under the statute and not time of providing of service.
4. In the above factual and legal situation, the tax demand is not sustainable at all. The appeals of the parties are, accordingly, allowed. The appeals of the Revenue are not maintainable in view of our finding that no service tax is attracted. Those appeals are rejected. All the appeals are ordered in these terms.
5. We are not going into the other contentions raised by the assesse since we are of the opinion that, on the above ground alone, the appeals can be disposed of.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open Court).