2017 (8) TMI 1054

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7.5% on export sales of the equipment/parts manufactured and sold. The annual financial statements for the year 2004-05 and 2005-06 reflected the payment of royalty. The department was of the view that the payment of royalty to M/s. General Motors, USA would attract service tax under the category of 'Intellectual Property Right Services'. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to demand service tax to the tune of Rs. 11,11,395/- under the category of IPR service along with interest and proposing to impose penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification of the serv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he royalty paid to GM, USA cannot be construed as Charges paid for Intellectual Property services and are not taxable under this category. He adverted to amendment of the agreement dated 15.10.1997 and submitted that as per clause 4.1(b) of the amendment, it is stated that this agreement does not include any sale, transfer or assignment of any patents'. For this reason also, the royalty paid would not fall under IPR services. He relied upon the decision in the case of Saint-Gobain Gyproc India Ltd. Vs. CCE Rohtak - 2015 (38) STR 1092 (Tri.-Del.). 3. The Ld. AR, Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC, reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the annual financial statements reflected the payment of royalty to GM, USA. The sai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oth the sides and perused the records. The Service Tax is sought to be demanded on the amount being paid by the appellant to BPB, UK in terms of Article 8.2 of their agreement with them. While in terms of the Article 8.1 of the Agreement, the appellant were required to pay a lump sum amount of # 400000 as consideration for technical knowhow provided, within a specified period and the same amount has already been paid, Article 8.2 provides for recurring annual payment @ 3% of the annual sales turnover for technical services provided by M/s. BPB to the appellant. The technical services being provided are those mentioned in Annexure-II to the agreement, which are expert advice and assistance with identification specification and preparation of....