TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 397
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rise for consideration are both the appellants in this case have been charged with non-payment of service tax liability and were alleged to have been evading service tax on the services received under the category of 'Intellectual Property Services' (In Appeal No. 1/07) and under the category of "Business Auxiliary Services" (In Appeal No. 376/07). The period of dispute in both these cases is in Appeal No. 1/07, from 10-9-2004 to 30-6-2006 and in Appeal No. 376/07 from 9-7-2004 to 31-3-2006. 3. The main allegation and the charges as upheld by the adjudicating authority in both the cases are the appellants have remitted some amount for the services received by both to foreign nationals/parties. It was held by the Adjudicating Authority that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant in Appeal No. 1/07 has received services of 'intellectual property rights' inasmuch as they have received the rights for reproducing the IPR of the Non-resident Indian. It is his submission that these services are liable to tax under the services of intellectual property rights. It is her submission that the service tax liability has to be discharged by the appellant from 1-1-2005. Learned SDR would also submit that in Appeal No. 376/07, the appellants themselves have accepted that they have paid commission to the non-resident/person situated outside India and such commission is given by them for promoting their products in Russia and Indonasia. It is the submission that if that be so, the said activity falls under the catego....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the above quoted rule 2(d)(iv) shows that by that provision a person liable for paying the service tax was defined, to mean in relation to any taxable service provided by a person who is non-resident or is from outside India to a person receiving taxable service in India. Apart from the fact that this rule is contrary to the provisions of section 68 and other provisions of the Act, under this provision the recipient of the service became liable for paying the service tax provided, the service was received in India. The entire case of the petitioners is in relation to the service received by the vessels and ships owned hy the members of the petitioner-association outside India. Therefore, it cannot be said that on the basis of rule 2(1)(d)(....