Tribunal Rules in Favor of Appellant on Intellectual Property Services Dispute

The Tribunal concluded that the use of the trade marks "Hero Honda" and "Hero Honda 4T plus" by the oil companies under the agreement with the appellant constituted "Intellectual Property Services." However, the major part of the demand was barred by limitation, and the matter was remanded for re-quantification of the demand within the limitation period. The penalties imposed on the appellant were set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the services provided by the appellant under "Intellectual Property Services."
2. Applicability of the CBEC Circular No. 80/10/2004-S.T. dated 17.9.2004.
3. Registration status of the trade marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
4. Infringement and use of registered trade marks.
5. Invocation of the extended period of limitation for the demand.
6. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the services provided by the appellant under "Intellectual Property Services":
The appellant, M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., entered into agreements with M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., M/s. TIDE Water Oil Co. Ltd., and M/s. Savita Chemicals Ltd., permitting them to use the trade marks "Hero Honda" and "Hero Honda 4T plus" on their products. The Revenue classified these services under "Intellectual Property Services" based on the definition under Section 65 (55)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994, and raised a demand for service tax.

2. Applicability of the CBEC Circular No. 80/10/2004-S.T. dated 17.9.2004:
The appellant contended that the scope of "Intellectual Property Right" as defined by Section 65 (55a) of the Finance Act is confined to IPRs governed by specific legislations in India. The CBEC Circular clarified that IPRs not covered by specific Indian legislation, such as unregistered trade marks, do not give rise to taxable services. The appellant argued that their trade marks were registered only for motorcycles and not for oils, lubricants, and greases, making them unregistered for the latter class of products.

3. Registration status of the trade marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999:
The appellant argued that their trade marks were registered only for motorcycles and parts thereof (Class 12) and not for oils, lubricants, and greases, which are a different class of products. Consequently, the trade marks should be considered unregistered for these products, and thus not covered under "Intellectual Property Right" as per Section 65(55a).

4. Infringement and use of registered trade marks:
The Revenue argued that the trade marks "Hero Honda" and "Hero Honda 4T plus" are registered in the name of the appellant and their use by the oil companies without an agreement would constitute infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The agreement between the appellant and the oil companies for the use of these trade marks and the payment of royalty indicated a connection between the appellant's products and the oil companies' products, thus falling under "Intellectual Property Services."

5. Invocation of the extended period of limitation for the demand:
The demand for service tax was raised for the period October 2004 to January 2006 by issuing a show cause notice on 31.8.2006, invoking the extended period of limitation. The Commissioner justified the invocation of the extended period based on the appellant's failure to comply with statutory provisions, which was considered suppression of facts. However, the Tribunal found that mere failure to comply with statutory provisions does not justify the invocation of the extended period without evidence of intent to evade tax. The Tribunal held that the major part of the demand was barred by limitation and remanded the matter for re-quantification of the demand within the limitation period.

6. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act:
The Tribunal found no suppression or mis-statement on the part of the appellant with any malafide intent. Therefore, the penal provisions under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act were not applicable. The Tribunal set aside the entire penalty imposed on the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the use of the trade marks "Hero Honda" and "Hero Honda 4T plus" by the oil companies under the agreement with the appellant constituted "Intellectual Property Services." However, the major part of the demand was barred by limitation, and the matter was remanded for re-quantification of the demand within the limitation period. The penalties imposed on the appellant were set aside.

---