2018 (9) TMI 1598

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xcise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). 2. The Revenue urges following two questions of law for our consideration:- (a) "Whether the service provided by M/s. Rochem AG Swizerland to the Respondent herein is covered under the "Intellectual Property Right Service' falling under Clause (zzr) of Section 65(105)"? (b) Whether the provisions of extended time period laid down in Section 73(i) are invokable in the present case"?   3. Re. Question No.(a):- (i) We find that this question on merits as proposed is academic in the facts of this case. This in view of the fact that the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 10th December, 2014 is inter alia records as follows:- "We have held above that the Commi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellectual Property Right service from a foreign party. The demand of Rs. 73.44 lakhs only pertains to period 2007-08 as is evident from the annexure to the notice. (iii) The Commissioner of Service Tax by an order dated 4th January, 2013 upheld the demand holding that the Respondent was liable to pay tax under the Act for the royalty paid. This under the reverse charge mechanism by invoking the extended time period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act. However, no penalties were imposed by the order dated 4 January 2013 of the Commissioner of Service Tax. (iv) Being aggrieved, the Respondent filed an Appeal to the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal recorded the fact that there are two issues which aris....