TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....axable under the head of 'Intellectual Property Rights' as per section 65 (55a). Accordingly, the demand of Service Tax was confirmed and the same was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeal). Therefore, the present appeal. 2. Shri H. Ganguly, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal by relying on various judgments on the identical issue in the case of M/s Inductotherm Pvt. Ltd. Vide order no. A/11073/2019 dated 05.07.2019 wherein assessee's appeal was allowed. 3. Shri T.K. Sikdar, Ld. Asst. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He also placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. Bharat Heav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 SICPA Holding Switzerland, since the Agreement was for providing technical assistance, the Ld. Counsel for the department contended that in view of Article 5 of Technical Collaboration Agreement (page 123 of the Appeal Paper-Book), SICPA Holding Switzerland has granted to the appellant exclusive technical information under all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrect 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 establishes an intention to evade payment of Service Tax and hence, the demand is not time-barred. 6. From the records it appears that identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCE & ST, LTU, Mumbai [2016 (44) S.T.R. 82 (Tri.-Mumbai). The relevant portion of the said judgement is r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 judgement is reproduced below :- "5. We have heard both sides and examined the appeal records. The only point for decision is that whether or not the appellant received taxable service under the category of "Intellectual Property Right service" during the relevant period. The admitted facts of the case are that the technical know-how, e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mited 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 right should have been registered with trade mark/patent authority. In the present case, admittedly, there is no right recognized as IPR under any law for the time being in force in India. As such, there can be no provision of IPR service for tax liability on reverse charge basis. 8. In view of the settled legal position as held in various decisions o....