ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The stay application and appeal are taken up together for disposal as per law as the issue is covered by large number of judgments as noted below:
1) Navinon Ltd., v. CCE Mumbai-VI
2) Pfizer Ltd., v. CCE 2006 (3) STR 693 (Tri-Mum)
3) Rubco Huat Woods P Ltd., v. CCE 2006 (4) STR 603 (Tri-Che)
4) CCE v. Reichie De Massari AG Switzerland 2006 (3) STR 590 (Tri-Che)
5) BST Ltd., v. CCE 2006 (3) STR 665 (Tri-Del)
6) Yamaha Motors (I) Pvt Ltd. v. CCE 2006 (3) STR 665 (Tri-Del)
7) Colgate Palmolive Co. v. CCE 2006 TIOL 949 (CESTAT-Mum)
8) Betts UK Ltd., v. CCE 2006 TIOL 948 (CESTAT-Mum)
9) Turbo Energy Ltd., v. CCE Chennai 2005 (TIOL 488-CESTAT-Mad
10) CCE Chennai v. Veleo Friction Material India Pvt Ltd.
2. The appellants have received technical information and the foreign company has transferred technology by agreement. The revenue has proceeded to recover service tax on such receipt of information and technical know-how under the category of “Consulting Engineers”. In terms of the above cited judgments, the Tribunal has clearly held that Such transfer of technology will not come under the definition of “Consulting Engineers”. Despite all the judgments being cited before the Commissioner, the Commissioner has not adhered to these rulings nor he has given his findings as to why those judgments are not applicable. Instead he has held that the Revenue has not accepted the final orders of the Tribunal. This cannot be a ground to not to apply the law laid down by the Tribunal. The impugned order is not correct in law. Respectively following the cited judgments, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief if any.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court)