TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1528
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heir foreign principal. Ld .Counsel pointed out that Revenue has not shown if the said technical know-how is registered or patented in India. He argued that in absence of the said evidence demand cannot be confirmed as is been held in the case of Sicpa India Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE & ST Siliguri 2018 (15) GSTL 375 (Tri. Kolkata), Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. vs CCE & ST, LTU, Bangalore 2017 (49) STR 209 (Tri. Bang.). 3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue has been decided in the case of Sicpa India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein following has been observed. 5. Rebutting the contention of the appellant that no liability of service tax arises on the Agreement between appellant and S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Counsel for the department submitted that the Learned adjudicating authority has clearly observed that in the absence of disclosure of the total amount of Royalty paid to the appellant, vide letter dated 5-6-2008 issued by the jurisdictional Range Officer, the appellant had not been able to substantiate their claim of incorrect computation of liability. As regards the limitation aspect, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the department is that pursuant to the said Agreement in 1991, though they received services six to seven months prior to the levy of Tax on the said services, but they did not register themselves with the department, nor did they pay any Service Tax during the period May, 2005 to March, 2009, which clearly estab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... here has to be an Indian Law and not the recognition of the intangible property right under the law of a third country. If an intangible property right was to refer to a right which is recognised by any country, then the legislature would not have used the expression "under any law for the time being in force". The legislature would have merely stated that an Intellectual Property Right would mean any right to an intangible property. There would have been no need for it to qualify the same with a recognition under any law for the time being in force." 7. Further the issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-I [2016 (45) S.T.R. 118 (Tri.-Del.)]. Relevant portion of the said judgem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has been examined by various decisions of the Tribunal which are as under : (a) Rochem Separation Systems (India) Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 112 (Tri.-Mum.) [para 8]; (b) Whirlpool of India Limited v. C.C.E & S.T., Delhi - 2016-VIL-57-CESTAT-DEL-ST [para 7]; (c) Tata Consultancy Services Limited v. C.S.T., Mumbai - 2015-TIOL-2370-CESTAT-MUM = 2016 (41) S.T.R. 121 (Tri.) [para 4.1]; (d) Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. C.C.E & S.T., Bangalore - 2016-VIL-480-CESTAT-BLR-ST [para 6.7.1]; (e) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S. Tax, Mumbai - 2016-TIOL-1654-CESTAT-MUM = 2016 (44) S.T.R. 82 (Tri.) [para 2]. 7. It has been held that to be categorized for service tax purpose under IPR, such....