https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203816 The Tribunal held that the appellant did not provide "scientific or technical consultancy services" but rather intellectual property services to Cadila. However, the appellant was found liable for service tax under "market research agency services" for providing product promotion and market development services. The extended period of limitation was upheld for the demand of service tax on market research agency services. The transaction value was treated as cum-tax value, allowing for the deduction of service tax. Penalties for scientific or technical consultancy services were set aside, but penalties for market research agency services were to be re-examined. The appellant's appeal was partially allowed, with directions for re-quantification of demand and penalty imposition. en-us Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203816 The Tribunal held that the appellant did not provide "scientific or technical consultancy services" but rather intellectual property services to Cadila. However, the appellant was found liable for service tax under "market research agency services" for providing product promotion and market development services. The extended period of limitation was upheld for the demand of service tax on market research agency services. The transaction value was treated as cum-tax value, allowing for the deduction of service tax. Penalties for scientific or technical consultancy services were set aside, but penalties for market research agency services were to be re-examined. The appellant's appeal was partially allowed, with directions for re-quantification of demand and penalty imposition. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203816