Nyco S.A. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Nyco S.A. vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 12, 2007

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/44821

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/44821
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: N T C.N.B., M Ravindran
Decided On: Feb 12, 2007
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nyco S.A.

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Excerpt

1. heard both sides and perused the records. the submission of the sr.learned counsel of the applicant is that the revenue authorities had erroneously treated the know-how transfer agreement as a consulting engineering service. it is being pointed out that the impugned findings are contrary to decision of this tribunal in the case of pfizer ltd. .2. the perusal of the agreement brings out that the agreement is "to pass on the know-how as available with and used by nf in its own commercial production, as per the phased programme, to manufacture the base stocks and finished products as listed in annexures i, ii & iii with the provision for the list to be expanded as mutually agreed from time to time between nf and jvc." 2.1.2 of the collaboration agreement.3. the finding in the impugned order does not seem to be sustainable.in view of the above legal position, the stay applications are allowed and recovery stayed till disposal of appeals.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides and perused the records. The submission of the Sr.

learned Counsel of the applicant is that the revenue authorities had erroneously treated the know-how transfer agreement as a consulting engineering service. It is being pointed out that the impugned findings are contrary to decision of this Tribunal in the case of Pfizer Ltd. .

2. The perusal of the agreement brings out that the agreement is "to pass on the know-how as available with and used by NF in its own commercial production, as per the phased programme, to manufacture the Base Stocks and Finished Products as listed in Annexures I, II & III with the provision for the list to be expanded as mutually agreed from time to time between NF and JVC." 2.1.2 of the collaboration agreement.

3. The finding in the impugned order does not seem to be sustainable.

In view of the above legal position, the stay applications are allowed and recovery stayed till disposal of appeals.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Nyco S.A. vs Commissioner of C. Ex. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge N T C.N.B., M Ravindran