TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iefly stated the facts of the case are that during the course of scrutiny of the records, it was noticed by the Department that the appellant had entered into Technical Collaboration Agreements with various companies viz. (i) M/s. Thales Electron Devices, France, (ii) M/s. Ericsson NW System, Sweden, (iii) M/s. ELTA Electronics, Israel. As per the said agreements, the appellant received know-how and technical information, training and technical assistance, Right and Licence to use know-how for manufacture of the licensed products, purchase assistance and manufacturing and selling rights from the said overseas companies. As consideration for the services received, the appellant agreed to pay Fixed Fee/Licence Fee/Training Fee and Royalty to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... date from which IPR services became taxable and prior to 18.04.2006 i.e. prior to introduction of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. Under bona fide belief that they were not required to pay service tax in respect of the services received and consideration paid to the foreign companies, the appellant did not pay any tax nor filed returns with the Department. In support, they referred to the following case laws: (a) Indian National Shipowners Association v. UOI, 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.) affirmed by Honorable Supreme Court in 2010 (17) STR J57 (SC). (b) CST v. Denso Haryana Pvt Ltd, 2016 (42) STR 754 (Tri-Del.). (c) Reliance Industries Ltd v. CCE, 2016 (44) STR 82 (Tri-Mum.). (d) Reliance Industries Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(zzr) of the Finance Act, 1994. In support, he referred to the following judgments as follows : (a) GE Medical Systems (India) Pvt Ltd v. CST Final Order No.21617/2024 dtd.13.12.2024 passed by this Honorable Bench/Tribunal. (b) GE BE Pvt Ltd v. CST - Final Order No.21243/2024 dtd. 12.12.2024 passed by this Honorable Bench/Tribunal. (c) Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. CST, 2024 (388) ELT 251 (Tri- Ahmd.). (d) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd v. CST, 2020 (38) GSTL 75 (Tri-Bang.). (e) Munjal Showa Ltd v. CCE, 2017 (5) GSTL 145 (Tri-Chan.) affirmed by Honorable Supreme Court reported in (2023) 8 Centax 153 (SC). (f) Lurgi India International Services Pvt Ltd v. CCE, 2020 (34) GSTL 507 (Tri- Hyd.). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levy of service tax on Intellectual Property Right (IPR) services; secondly, that the said services do not come under the scope of Intellectual Property Right (IPR) Services. 7. The said issues could not dwell as much as these are no more res integra and covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in a series of cases. This Tribunal in the case of CST vs. Denso Haryana Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (42) STR 754 (Tri.-Del.)], in similar circumstances examining the applicability of IPR services to agreements entered prior to 10.09.2004, held as follows: 5. Having heard both the sides and examined the terms of the agreement and other facts of the case, we find that the point for decision is whether or not IPR service was received even after 10-9-20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x is leviable. 7. We find the facts and the legal analyses as made in the above two decisions are applicable to the present case. Here the agreement for grant of license or transfer/permission to use technology was effected before 10-9-2004. The fact that M/s. DHPL continued to manufacture and sell using such transferred technology even after the introduction of service tax on IPR cannot be considered as continuous supply of service. The rendering of service is effectively determined by the date of transfer/permission to use technology by M/s. Denso, Japan which was prior to the introduction of tax liability on such service. 8. We find the Id. Commissioner (Adjudication) Service Tax, Delhi in his order dated 28-2-2011, in ....