https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783145 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside the entire service tax demand. It held that royalty income was remitted to and accounted for by the corporate office, and all units formed a single legal entity; therefore, if any service tax were payable on royalty, it would be the liability of the corporate office, not the separately registered manufacturing unit (appellant). The Tribunal further held that know-how licensing under the relevant agreement did not fall within "Intellectual Property Rights Services," hence no reverse charge liability arose. Additionally, service tax under "Business Auxiliary Service" on export sales expenses under reverse charge was found unsustainable, as no specific clause of Section 65(19) was invoked. en-us Thu, 30 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Dec 2025 12:20:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783145 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside the entire service tax demand. It held that royalty income was remitted to and accounted for by the corporate office, and all units formed a single legal entity; therefore, if any service tax were payable on royalty, it would be the liability of the corporate office, not the separately registered manufacturing unit (appellant). The Tribunal further held that know-how licensing under the relevant agreement did not fall within "Intellectual Property Rights Services," hence no reverse charge liability arose. Additionally, service tax under "Business Auxiliary Service" on export sales expenses under reverse charge was found unsustainable, as no specific clause of Section 65(19) was invoked. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 30 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783145