<?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>2009 (4) TMI 121 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34320</link>
    <description>Composite agreements transferring trade marks and know-how, supplying formulations, and providing technical assistance, advice and training were treated as scientific or technical consultancy rather than a bare intellectual-property assignment. Marketing arrangements involving product promotion, market development, customer education, field assistance and marketing strategy were treated as market research agency service because they concerned product and variant-related market research. The extended limitation period remained available where suppression or misdeclaration was prima facie established; an earlier notice concerning different classification issues did not bar its use. Complete waiver at the stay stage was refused, with a reduced pre-deposit and stay of the balance pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 121 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34320</link>
      <description>Composite agreements transferring trade marks and know-how, supplying formulations, and providing technical assistance, advice and training were treated as scientific or technical consultancy rather than a bare intellectual-property assignment. Marketing arrangements involving product promotion, market development, customer education, field assistance and marketing strategy were treated as market research agency service because they concerned product and variant-related market research. The extended limitation period remained available where suppression or misdeclaration was prima facie established; an earlier notice concerning different classification issues did not bar its use. Complete waiver at the stay stage was refused, with a reduced pre-deposit and stay of the balance pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34320</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>