2018 (5) TMI 984

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct, 1994. 2. The case against the appellant is that they were in receipt of 'intellectual property service' taxable under section 65(105)(zzr) of Finance Act, 1994 for which consideration of Rs. 5,92,93,500/- was paid to M/s Windtec Engineering GmbH between 26th April 2008 and 25^th August 2008 as licence fee for using the technical information software to be deployed in manufacture, installation, sale, operation and maintenance of wind turbines. Appellant is the manufacture of such products and are in the business of manufacture and sale of windmills; as the provider of service is based outside the country, service tax was held to be liable to be paid by appellant under section 66A of Finance Act, 1994. 3. It is the contentio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llectual property right' as 'any right to intangible property, namely, trademarks, designs, patents or any other similar intellectual property, under any' law for the time being in force, but does not include copy right It is clear, therefore, that what is envisaged for taxation is the utilisation of intellectual property which is recognised as such within the territory of India and such right over the intellectual property should be enforceable by the laws of the country. This, in essence, has been the ratio of the various decisions of the Tribunal cited by Learned Counsel. In re Catapro Technologies it has been held that: '5. It is apparent from the definition of the taxable service that the liability will arise i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal was called upon to decide the legality of demand on 'reverse charge basis' on receipt of a service that was volunteered by the recipient as 'intellectual property service ' which Revenue sought to tax under a different entry. The ingredients that render the service taxable under Section 65(105)(zzr) was not subject to scrutiny by the Tribunal and a reference to technical know-how therein can hardly be adduced as settling the classification of the activity as the taxable service. Per contra, Paragraph 9.1 of Circular No. B2/8/2004-TRU, dated 10th September, 2004 of Central Board of Excise & Customs, cited by learned Counsel for appellant does amplify the object of tax as intellectual property rights under prescribed....