https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768532 The CESTAT NEW DELHI held that the appellant was not liable for service tax on transfer of technical know-how in 2009. The tribunal ruled that intellectual property service was only covered under section 66E(c) from July 1, 2012, and technical know-how cannot be treated as IPR unless registered under Indian law. Citing precedent, the tribunal emphasized that IPR must be registered with trademark/patent authorities for service tax purposes. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed, confirming no service tax liability existed prior to July 2012 for unregistered technical know-how transfers. en-us Mon, 07 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Apr 2025 10:38:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768532 The CESTAT NEW DELHI held that the appellant was not liable for service tax on transfer of technical know-how in 2009. The tribunal ruled that intellectual property service was only covered under section 66E(c) from July 1, 2012, and technical know-how cannot be treated as IPR unless registered under Indian law. Citing precedent, the tribunal emphasized that IPR must be registered with trademark/patent authorities for service tax purposes. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed, confirming no service tax liability existed prior to July 2012 for unregistered technical know-how transfers. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 07 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768532