Page 223 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] INOX WIND LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, NOIDA 125
CASES CITED
Collector v. Presto Industries — 2001 (128) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) — Relied on ....................................... [Para 10]
Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Modi Sugar Mills — 12 STC 182 — Followed .................................... [Para 7]
Commissioner v. Dilip Kumar & Company — 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) — Followed ........ [Paras 8, 10]
Commissioner v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal — 2010 (260) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Followed ....................... [Para 10]
Commissioner v. Parenteral Drugs (I) Ltd. — 2009 (236) E.L.T. 625 (S.C.) — Relied on ................ [Para 10]
Corpus Juris Secundum — Vol. 85, At P. 580, Para 1023 — Relied on .............................................. [Para 12]
Dayal Singh v. Union of India — AIR 2003 SC 1140 — Followed ........................................................ [Para 7]
Hotel Leela Venture Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2009 (234) E.L.T. 389 (S.C.) — Relied on ............... [Para 10]
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (324) E.L.T. 646 (S.C.) — Relied on ..................... [Para 10]
Motiram Tolaram v. Union of India — 1999 (112) E.L.T. 749 (S.C.) — Relied on............................ [Para 10]
Mysore Metal Industries v. Collector — 1988 (36) E.L.T. 369 (S.C.) — Relied on ........................... [Para 10]
R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills Ltd. — (SCC p. 110, Para 19) — Relied on ...................................................... [Para 12]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Shiv Pratap Singh, Authorised Representative,
for the Respondent.
[Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - As per facts on record, the
appellant is engaged in providing taxable services under the category of “Recipi-
ent of Consulting Engineering Service”, “Management Consultant Service,”
“Maintenance & Repair Service”, “Erection Commissioning & Installation Ser-
vice” and is duly registered with the Service Tax Department.
2. The appellant received transfer of technology services from abroad
and was required to discharge service tax in respect of the same, on reverse
charge basis. As such service tax was discharged by them by claiming exemption
in terms of Notification No. 18/2002-S.T., dated 16-12-2002, as amended vide
Notification No. 46/2011-S.T., dated 19-9-2011.
3. As the entire dispute revolves around the applicability of Notifica-
tion No. 18/2002-S.T. as amended vide Notification No. 46/2011, we deem it fit
to reproduce the said two Notifications :-
Notification No. 18/2002-S.T., dated 16-12-2002
“In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 93
of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, being
satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby,
exempts the taxable services provided by a consulting engineer to a
client on transfer of technology from so much of the service tax lev-
iable thereon under Section 66 of the said Act, as is equivalent to the
amount of cess paid on the said transfer of technology under the
provisions of the Section 3 of the Research and Development Cess
Act, 1986 (32 of 1986)”.
Amending Notification No. 46/2011-S.T., dated 19-9-2011
“In the said notification, for the words, figures and brackets
“amount of cess paid on the said transfer of technology under the
provisions of the Section 3 of the Research and Development Cess
Act, 1986 (32 of 1986)”, the following words, figures and brackets
shall be substituted, namely :
“Amount of cess payable of the said transfer of technology under
the provisions of the Section 3 of the Research and Development
Cess Act, 1986 (32 of 1986), subject to the following conditions
namely :-
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  287