Full Judgment
3. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent is that the appeal does not context the finding of the Commissioned Appeals) in para 11 of his order and therefore, no relief can be claimed. Para 11 of the order may be read: 11. I also agree with the contention of the Appellant that, even if it is presumed, that the said payment is for "scientific or technical consultancy services, it is not covered as there was no service tax during the relevant period, as it has been provided prior to 16.7.01 (date on which service tax levied on such service).
During April'02 - March'03 the Appellant has paid Rs. 21589267/- for technical know how licence fee and services provided from 1990 onwards but before 16.7.01 on such circumstances, I observe that there is nothing on record to prove that, during 2002-03 M/s.
Atochem has provided any scientific or technical services to the Appellant in India, thus Service Tax is not leviable on the Appellant.
Ld. Counsel would point out that since the service agreement with the French Co. was of 1990 and service was rendered well before the introduction of service tax on "scientific or technical consultancy" service, there could be no tax demand at all, as the levy introduced in 2001 is prospective in its operation. It is also pointed out that the prospective nature of the levy has been accepted by the Tribunal in its decision in the case of CCE v. Matsushita TV & Audio India Ltd. reported in 2006 (1) STR. 162.
5. The contentions on merit in the revenue's appeal of no relevance since the service was rendered prior to the introduction of service tax on the particular service in 2001. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, we reject the appeal on the ground that no levy was attracted in the instant case since the service was rendered before the tax was imposed on Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service.