TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16,50,912/- in their suspense account. It appeared to the department that the amounts have been received by appellants from the customers which are in the nature of advances and the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the same. Accordingly, show cause notice dt. 16.12.2008 was issued, inter alia proposing demand of service tax of Rs. 1,81,606/- on the amounts shown in the suspense account namely Rs. 16,50,912/- . The notice also proposed demand of service tax towards royalty charges collected from the assayers for Hallmarking. In adjudication original authority confirmed total tax liability of Rs. 3,29,722/- with interest thereon and imposed equal penalty which was upheld by the lower appellate authority vide OIA dt. 11.2.2011 (impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urpose, the said customer is recognized as a creditor of the appellant, by raising a credit note on them. This is purely an accounting function and has got nothing to do with the service tax liability of the appellant. The raising of credit note by the appellant on the customer who has made the excess payment does not have the effect of nullifying the service tax already paid by the appellant to the Government on the total amount received. It is only an accounting transaction, to recognize the liability of the appellant towards such customer, who has made the excess payment. From the above facts, it may be observed that the demand confirmed against the appellant amounts to double jeopardy as service tax has already been paid by the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned order. 5. Heard both sides. On the controversy of excess charges received by the appellant, from the various submissions and facts on record we find that whenever any amount is received at the first instance from any client, appellant discharges the tax liability on that amount on cum tax basis. There is no allegation that higher amount than what is charged to customer in respect of marking charges has been collected. We are inclined to accept the averment of the Ld. Advocate that this is only an accounting convenience that has been adopted by the appellant and that raising of credit notes by the appellant on the customer who has made excess payment will not have the effect of nullifying the service tax already paid by them to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the cover of revenue agreement. In our view, the lower authorities misapplied the provisions of tax entry and erred in factual appreciation. In terms of Section 65 (105) (22r) taxable service means any service provided to any person, by the holder of Intellectual Property Right, in relation to intellectual property service. In the present case we note that "Hallmark" is not at all any intellectual property governed by any law for such right. Section 9 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 lays down that certain marks cannot be registered as a trademark. The "Hallmark" only signifies that the products which are hallmarked are in conformity to the standards under the Hallmarking Scheme. Unauthorised use of "Hallmark" is punishable under BIS Act, 1986. Thi....