TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Accepted Despite Delay: Waterfront Royalty Charges Not IP Rights.</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD accepted the appeal despite a four-day delay, considering the explanation provided. It ruled that Water Front ... Waiver of pre-deposit - Intellectual property right - Water Front Royalty - the measure of the amount is based upon the tonnage of the cargo handled at a particular Port. - Section 65 (55a) – Held that:- prima facie, the kind of charges which has been collected by the appellant for usage of Water Front as Water Front Royalty Charges will not be covered under the definition of Intellectual Property Rights. - Stay granted. Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, interpretation of Intellectual Property Rights in relation to Water Front Royalty charges, waiver of pre-deposit of service tax liability.In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal was addressed. The delay of four days was explained adequately in the application, supported by an affidavit from the Deputy Finance Controller of the Gujarat Maritime Board. The Tribunal, considering the marginal delay and proper explanation, directed the registry to accept the stay petition and appeal. Moving on to the next issue, the interpretation of Intellectual Property Rights concerning Water Front Royalty charges was deliberated. The State Government contended that the Water Front Royalty, being a charge for the usage of Water Front, does not fall under Intellectual Property Rights as defined in Section 65(55a) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the charges for Water Front usage do not align with the definition of Intellectual Property Rights, which pertains to intangible property rights like trademarks and patents. Consequently, the appellant's case for the waiver of pre-deposit of the service tax liability, interest, and penalties was accepted. The Tribunal found that the Water Front Royalty charges do not constitute Intellectual Property Rights, allowing for the waiver and stay of recovery until the appeal's disposal. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal definitions and implications, ensuring a fair and just decision based on the interpretation of relevant laws and definitions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
