https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355988 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the service tax liability imposed for transferring the trade mark rights. It clarified that the tax liability was on the transfer of Intellectual Property Right, not on continuous usage, as the transfer of the right to use the brand name occurred before the introduction of the tax entry. The tribunal emphasized that continuous receipt of consideration does not necessarily imply continuous rendering of taxable service, determining that the tax liability arises at the event of transfer or permission to use the intellectual property right. en-us Mon, 15 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Feb 2018 06:40:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355988 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the service tax liability imposed for transferring the trade mark rights. It clarified that the tax liability was on the transfer of Intellectual Property Right, not on continuous usage, as the transfer of the right to use the brand name occurred before the introduction of the tax entry. The tribunal emphasized that continuous receipt of consideration does not necessarily imply continuous rendering of taxable service, determining that the tax liability arises at the event of transfer or permission to use the intellectual property right. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 15 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355988