Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
CESTAT held that the royalty received for trademark licensing constitutes a 'deemed sale' of intellectual property rights, not a service. The transaction involving exclusive trademark license qualifies as transfer of right to use goods under constitutional provisions. Service tax was not leviable on the royalty amount. While the appellant's primary claim succeeded, the refund claim was rejected due to lack of evidence of tax reversal and application of unjust enrichment doctrine. The appellate tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, determining that the original service tax demand was wrongly confirmed and the royalty transaction did not attract service tax liability.
CESTAT held that the royalty received for trademark licensing constitutes a 'deemed sale' of intellectual property rights, not a service. The transaction involving exclusive trademark license qualifies as transfer of right to use goods under constitutional provisions. Service tax was not leviable on the royalty amount. While the appellant's primary claim succeeded, the refund claim was rejected due to lack of evidence of tax reversal and application of unjust enrichment doctrine. The appellate tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, determining that the original service tax demand was wrongly confirmed and the royalty transaction did not attract service tax liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
