<?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>2024 (4) TMI 726 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751545</link>
    <description>Unregistered confidential technical know-how, licence fees and allied technology-transfer payments to a foreign supplier were held not to fall within intellectual property service for service tax under reverse charge, because the taxable entry applies to legally recognised intellectual property rights such as patents, trademarks and designs. Repair and overhaul receipts were treated as taxable maintenance/repair services performed in India, so the export-of-service claim was not accepted; however, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because wilful suppression or intent to evade duty was not established. The impugned order was set aside and the assessee succeeded on the core demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 14:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=750449" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 726 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751545</link>
      <description>Unregistered confidential technical know-how, licence fees and allied technology-transfer payments to a foreign supplier were held not to fall within intellectual property service for service tax under reverse charge, because the taxable entry applies to legally recognised intellectual property rights such as patents, trademarks and designs. Repair and overhaul receipts were treated as taxable maintenance/repair services performed in India, so the export-of-service claim was not accepted; however, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because wilful suppression or intent to evade duty was not established. The impugned order was set aside and the assessee succeeded on the core demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751545</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>