https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333289 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that manufacturing/tie-up agreements do not attract service tax as royalty payments. The agreements were distinguished from royalty agreements based on the bottlers' role as manufacturers under license, receiving a fixed bottling fee without fixed royalty payments. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal held that brand owners in tie-up agreements are not liable for service tax. The Tribunal set aside the order on service tax liability and rejected the Revenue's appeal for an extended demand period. en-us Thu, 04 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Oct 2016 13:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333289 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that manufacturing/tie-up agreements do not attract service tax as royalty payments. The agreements were distinguished from royalty agreements based on the bottlers' role as manufacturers under license, receiving a fixed bottling fee without fixed royalty payments. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal held that brand owners in tie-up agreements are not liable for service tax. The Tribunal set aside the order on service tax liability and rejected the Revenue's appeal for an extended demand period. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 04 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333289