2024 (12) TMI 608 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Grants Tax Exemption to Appellants by Confirming Brand Name Registration for Texla and Texlavision.

The tribunal allowed the appeals of the two appellants, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) order, and granted them the benefit of the exemption under ... Entitlement for benefit of the exemption N/N. 6/2005-ST - exemption for taxable services provided under a brand name - denial of exemption on the ground that the brand TEXLA was registered in the name of Shri Amrik Singh only and not in the name of the appellants herein - whether the appellants get excluded by virtue of the proviso to this notification? - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals), relying on a website www.indiafilings.com/index.php, concluded that the two brand names were registered only in the name of Shri Amrik Singh and therefore, allowed his appeal but did not allow the appeals of the two appellants herein (Satnam Singh and Harvinder Singh). From the copies of the certificates of registration issued by the Registrar of Trade marks produced before us, we are convinced that the two trade marks Texla and Texlavision were also registered in the name of the two appellants herein. Therefore, they were entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. Issues:Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2005-ST regarding exemption for taxable services provided under a brand name, Registration of brand names Texla and Texlavision, Correctness of Commissioner (Appeals) order, Entitlement of the appellants to benefit of exemption notification.Analysis:The case involved an appeal against an order-in-appeal dated 31.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order-in-original dated 06.06.2016, which rejected the appeals filed by two appellants but allowed the appeal of another individual. The appellants, along with the individual, provided services of renting immovable property and franchisee services to a partnership firm. They received rent and royalty, availed exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-ST, but were later demanded service tax as the brand name was allegedly not registered in their names. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the individual but denied the benefit to the two appellants, leading to the appeals before the tribunal.The main contention was whether the two appellants were entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification as the brand name was registered only in the name of the individual. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a website for this conclusion. However, the appellants produced certificates of registration of the brand names Texla and Texlavision issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks, showing that the names were also registered in their names. The tribunal, after considering the submissions and records, found that the appellants were indeed entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification as per the proviso of the notification.Therefore, the tribunal allowed both appeals, setting aside the impugned order insofar as it pertained to the two appellants. The appellants were deemed entitled to consequential relief as per the judgment pronounced on 11/12/2024. The case highlighted the importance of proper registration of brand names and the significance of documentary evidence in determining eligibility for tax exemptions under specific notifications.