2015 (12) TMI 1320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r D N Panda It is submission on behalf of appellant that it was a licencee of the music companies to make use of their copyright and distribution thereof to telecommunication companies for downloading music, picture etc. Royalty for the copyright was to be payable to the music companies while appropriate value for the service provided to telecommunication companies were billed. 2. Appellant furt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with effect from 1.4.2010 when taxing entry therefor came up. Surprisingly, Revenue is taxing royalty from 1.5.2006 which is not permissible under law. 4. It is also submission of the appellant that when the appellant was complying to the law paying tax under business auxiliary serviceand the show cause notice has also recognized that, there cannot be a different view subsequently intending to c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... owners which were the music companies. There was a privy between the appellant and the music companies to distribute the copyright what was conferred by the music company on the appellant. Therefore, Revenue has nothing to do to make an exercise to bring music companies into the picture to determine incidence of tax. Revenue proceeded on the fact that what was realized by the appellant was undisp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Prima facie, examination of the license agreement extracted by the learned adjudicating authority in the impugned order shows that the copyright holder was also aware that the appellant is going to exploit the copyright for mutual benefit of each other. Therefore, at this stage it looks like a case of advancement of business of music companies by the appellant. Therefore, prima facie, liability of....