JUDGMENT [Judgment per : K. L. MANJUNATH, J.]. - Revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the CESTAT in Final Order No. 1061-63 dated 15-6-2006 wherein the appeal filed by the respondent - assessee has been allowed by the tribunal by setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax. Facts leading to this case are as hereunder : The assessee entered into an agreement with M/s. AB SKF Sweden for availing the technical know-how and technical assistance and during the relevant assessment year it paid Rs. 4,20,85,651/- as service charges to a foreign collaborator. On the ground that service tax was not paid, show cause notice was got issued on 26-8-2003 demanding service tax, interest, penalty etc. and thereafter an Order-in-Original No. 6/2005, dated 28-11-2005 was passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax confirming the demand made in the show cause notice. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, assessee filed an appeal before CESTAT which came to be allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed raising the following substantial question of law : "Whether during the relevant period, in view of the Board's Circular dated 2-7-1997 the technical assistance and technical know-how received by the respondent from a foreign company did not constitute taxable service viz., Consulting Engineer Service ?" We have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the appellant submits that though consent has been given by the Commissioner before the CESTAT, same was not the ground for the CESTAT to consider the case of the assessee in its favour. According to him, question that arises for the consideration of this court in this appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Per contra, counsel for the respondent submits that JCDR who appeared before the CESTAT has conceded that the issue is covered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal itself is not maintainable. According to him, question that arises for the consideration of this court in this appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Per contra, counsel for the respondent submits that JCDR who appeared before the CESTAT has conceded that the issue is covered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal itself is not maintainable. He alternatively contends that Mumbai High Court had an occasion to consider similar question in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association v. Union of India [2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.)] which matter has been decided against the revenue and he further contends that the judgment of the Supreme Court (sic) (High Court) was taken up by the revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme court and which SLP came to be dismissed after hearing the counsel for the parties [2010 (17) S.T.R. J57 (S.C.)]. Therefore he contends that the "question of law raised in this appeal is no more res integra, therefore he requests the court to dismiss the appeal". Counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the judgment of Bombay High Court has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But what he contends before us is that SLP is dismissed at the time of admission, same cannot be a ground to dismiss the appeal of the revenue and that the appeal of the revenue has to be considered again. According to us, Bombay High Court in detail has considered the relevant amendments and notifications which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing the counsel for the parties. Following the judgment of the Bombay High Court which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that substantial question of law arises in this appeal is required to be answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.