<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (12) TMI 184 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389301</link>
    <description>Royalty received under licence agreements for supply of parent seeds was held not liable to Service Tax as consideration for Intellectual Property Service because the taxable entry applied only where the service provider held a right recognised and conferred under the governing law; mere filing of an application did not establish ownership or holder status. The extended period of limitation was also held inapplicable because the royalty was disclosed in the books and to the department, and the dispute turned on statutory interpretation rather than suppression or misstatement; the connected penalty and interest demands therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Dec 2019 11:04:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=596311" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 184 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389301</link>
      <description>Royalty received under licence agreements for supply of parent seeds was held not liable to Service Tax as consideration for Intellectual Property Service because the taxable entry applied only where the service provider held a right recognised and conferred under the governing law; mere filing of an application did not establish ownership or holder status. The extended period of limitation was also held inapplicable because the royalty was disclosed in the books and to the department, and the dispute turned on statutory interpretation rather than suppression or misstatement; the connected penalty and interest demands therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>