TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1923
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....025 in Excise Appeal No.50318/2019 passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the tribunal'). 2. The brief facts are that the respondent/Micromax Informatics Ltd. had a dispute with Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Switzerland (for brevity 'Ericsson') concerning the use of patents and technologies belonging to Ericsson. 2.1 In a suit filed by Ericsson, this Court by interim orders directed the respondent to deposit a total sum of Rs. 154,79,43,050/-. The respondent was registered with the service tax department (hereinafter 'the department'). The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (for short 'DGCEI') investigated the matter and was of the view that the respondent was the recipient of serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e "mere deposits" and not "consideration" for the use of Ericsson's patented technology, thereby incorrectly negating Service Tax liability under Section 66A(1) Section 68(2) read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv)? 2) Whether the Tribunal failed to apply the settled principle that the nature and character of a payment is determined by its substance and not by its nomenclature, as laid down in binding Supreme Court decisions, thereby leading to a perverse finding on taxability of IPR services? 3) Whether the Tribunal erred in ignoring the applicability of the reverse charge mechanism to the import of IPR services from a foreign entity and in treating judicially-directed interim payments as non-taxable, despite the taxable event having ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of the consideration in pursuance to the settlement was the relevant date for taxation purposes. It is emphasised that after the withdrawal of the suit the amount deposited was directed to be released to the respective parties. 6. The dispute between Ericsson and the respondent related to the use of patents and technologies by the respondent belonging to Ericsson. During the pendency of the suit, to balance the equities and secure the interest of the appellant vide two interim orders the respondent was directed to deposit Rs. 154,79,43,050/-. The department treated the amount so deposited to be payment towards royalty. The proposal of the DGCEI after investigation was not accepted by the adjudicating authority. It was held that the ....