Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 660 (KAR)

Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore v. Denso Corporation

2011-07-01

RAVI MALIMATH, V.G.SABHAHIT

body2011
JUDGMENT V.G. Sabhahit , J.—This appeal is filed by the revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore in Appeal No. ST/42/2005, dated 18-5-2007. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal as per the appellant is as to whether the transfer of technology by a foreign company should be established within the ambit of 'Consulting Engineer'? 2. The Appellate Authority answered the said question against the revenue by following the earlier decisions and being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal having considered the contentions of the parties, held that the said question is already covered by the judgment rendered and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the revenue. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 4. The substantial question of law that raised in this appeal is as to whether the finding of the Tribunal rejecting the contention of the revenue that the transfer of technology by a foreign company cannot be brought within the ambit of, 'Consulting Engineer Service', is no longer res integra, in view of the judgment cited by the Tribunal and the judgment of this Court in CEA No. 13/2008 disposed of on 19-4-2011 [2011 (23) S.T.R. J226 (Kar.)]. While considering the similar question, this Court has held that "as the service provider is a foreign company, the Finance Act, 1994 is not applicable to him and he is not liable to pay service tax." The said fact has been accepted by the revenue and a Circular dated 30-6-2010 has been passed in that regard and Section 66A was inserted in the Finance Act, 1994, which came into force from 18-4-2006 foisting such liability on the recipient of the service. 5. In that view of the matter, following the reasoning given in CEA No. 13/2008 dated 19-4-2011, we hold that the appeal is devoid of merits and pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.