https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760296 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining they were not liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism for intellectual property services received from a foreign provider with an office in India. It concluded the service provider's presence in Bangalore exempted the appellant from liability under Section 66A. Additionally, the Tribunal recognized the appellant's claim of revenue neutrality and availability of Cenvat credit, finding no malafide intent. Consequently, the demand for the extended period was deemed unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal. en-us Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Oct 2024 08:28:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760296 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining they were not liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism for intellectual property services received from a foreign provider with an office in India. It concluded the service provider's presence in Bangalore exempted the appellant from liability under Section 66A. Additionally, the Tribunal recognized the appellant's claim of revenue neutrality and availability of Cenvat credit, finding no malafide intent. Consequently, the demand for the extended period was deemed unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760296