https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211721 A supervised and conditional grant of perpetual permission to use a trademark was treated as an intellectual property service, not a sale of goods, because the licensor retained ownership, the licensee acquired no proprietary interest, and breach of conditions could end the arrangement. The ordinary definitions of sale under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and the Central Excise Act, 1944 were held inapplicable to this intangible right, and exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST was rejected. Service tax and interest were therefore upheld. Penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 were set aside because the transaction involved a difficult question of statutory interpretation and intent to evade tax was not established. en-us Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211721 A supervised and conditional grant of perpetual permission to use a trademark was treated as an intellectual property service, not a sale of goods, because the licensor retained ownership, the licensee acquired no proprietary interest, and breach of conditions could end the arrangement. The ordinary definitions of sale under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and the Central Excise Act, 1944 were held inapplicable to this intangible right, and exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST was rejected. Service tax and interest were therefore upheld. Penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 were set aside because the transaction involved a difficult question of statutory interpretation and intent to evade tax was not established. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211721