2015 (11) TMI 235 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Service Tax

Head Note / Extract:
Demand of service tax - intellectual property rights - Reverse charge mechanism - whether or not IPR service was received even after 10.09.2004 by M/s DHPL in terms of agreement entered into in 2002 - Held that:- Agreement for grant of license or transfer / permission to use technology was effected before 10.09.2004. 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. - Commissioner (Adjudication) Service Tax, Delhi in his order dated 28.02.2011, in para 3.6.2, categorically examined the legal position and concluded that the allegation in the show cause notice that the service was provided on continuous basis is incorrect. Only payment of service was spread over a period of time. The service was performed as soon as the technology was transferred. - Decided against Revenue.