https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244447 The Tribunal upheld the demand under the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) category, agreeing with the Adjudicating Authority's justification based on services received for license and technology transfer. It also sustained the demand under the Consulting Engineer category for consultancy services provided by foreign engineers. However, the Tribunal ruled against invoking the longer period of limitation, directing the appellant to deposit a specific amount within a timeframe, leading to the mitigation of penalties and stay on recovery. This case clarifies the Tribunal's stance on IPR and Consulting Engineer demands and the application of limitation periods in tax disputes. en-us Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:19:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244447 The Tribunal upheld the demand under the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) category, agreeing with the Adjudicating Authority's justification based on services received for license and technology transfer. It also sustained the demand under the Consulting Engineer category for consultancy services provided by foreign engineers. However, the Tribunal ruled against invoking the longer period of limitation, directing the appellant to deposit a specific amount within a timeframe, leading to the mitigation of penalties and stay on recovery. This case clarifies the Tribunal's stance on IPR and Consulting Engineer demands and the application of limitation periods in tax disputes. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244447