<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (8) TMI 391 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75867</link>
    <description>Royalty for transfer of trade name and formulae was considered not prima facie taxable as Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service for the period before 10-9-2004, because that head applies to services rendered by a scientist, technocrat, or science or technology institution or organisation and the record did not show that character. The order noted that transfer of technical know-how, brand name, and similar rights had been treated as Intellectual Property Right Service from 10-9-2004, not under the earlier consultancy category. It also observed that the penalty under section 77 was introduced by corrigendum, which was open to serious objection. On that basis, a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was made out.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114104" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 391 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75867</link>
      <description>Royalty for transfer of trade name and formulae was considered not prima facie taxable as Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service for the period before 10-9-2004, because that head applies to services rendered by a scientist, technocrat, or science or technology institution or organisation and the record did not show that character. The order noted that transfer of technical know-how, brand name, and similar rights had been treated as Intellectual Property Right Service from 10-9-2004, not under the earlier consultancy category. It also observed that the penalty under section 77 was introduced by corrigendum, which was open to serious objection. On that basis, a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was made out.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75867</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>