https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426688 Permission given to contract bottling units to affix a brand name, together with related supervision, was treated as contract manufacture rather than a taxable transfer or independent use of intellectual property, because the brand owner retained effective control and the units could not commercially exploit the brand or know-how. The alleged intellectual property service demand was therefore unsustainable, and the valuation adopted on that basis also failed. The CENVAT credit issue was not finally determined, as the record was insufficient on nexus, separate accounts, and Rule 6 compliance, so it was remanded for fresh consideration. As the service tax demand did not survive, the extended period and connected penalties on that component were set aside. en-us Wed, 10 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Aug 2022 18:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426688 Permission given to contract bottling units to affix a brand name, together with related supervision, was treated as contract manufacture rather than a taxable transfer or independent use of intellectual property, because the brand owner retained effective control and the units could not commercially exploit the brand or know-how. The alleged intellectual property service demand was therefore unsustainable, and the valuation adopted on that basis also failed. The CENVAT credit issue was not finally determined, as the record was insufficient on nexus, separate accounts, and Rule 6 compliance, so it was remanded for fresh consideration. As the service tax demand did not survive, the extended period and connected penalties on that component were set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 10 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426688