2016 (1) TMI 821 - AT - Service Tax

Import of IPR services - reverse charge - Levy of service tax on Technology Transfer fee paid to Whirlpool, USA - Non payment of service tax on Brand Fee - Cenvat Credit - non-maintenance of separate records for taxable and exempted services - Held that:- It is evident that the agreement is entered for the purpose of supply of technology/technical assistance/information by Whirlpool, USA to the appellant and the remuneration received by Whirlpool, USA is only for the use of the same by the appellant. There is nothing on record that any of the said technology/technical know-how/information is registered or patented under Indian law. - only such intellectual property rights which are covered under Indian law in force alone are chargeable to service tax under IPR service. The Commissioner does not identify any Indian law under which the technology transfer and technical assistance involved in this case is covered.

Demand of service tax on Brand fee - Held that:- service tax on IPR service is exempt only to the extent of the R&D cess paid towards the import of technology under the provisions of Section 3 of the R&D Cess Act, 1986 in relation to such intellectual property service (emphasis added). It is admitted that no service tax was paid under IPR service on the amount paid for such technology transfer which means that the appellant also was of the view that such technology transfer was not in relation to IPR service. Indeed in the preceding para, it is held that such technology transfer is not covered under IPR service. Consequently, the appellant was not eligible to deduct the R&D cess it paid on technology transfer from the service tax payable under IPR service as such technology transfer was not in relation to intellectual property service. Thus the component of impugned demand amounting to ₹ 9,97,608/- is sustainable on merit.

Cenvat Credit - Held that:- Adjudicating authority is only bound by the orders of the superior adjudicating authority like CESTAT and the observations of the Committee of Chief Commissioners are of administrative nature and not of quasi-judicial nature to have any binding effect on adjudicating authority. Thus there is no doubt that even in the opinion of the adjudicating authority, component of demand confirmed on account of non-maintenance of separate accounts of taxable and exempted services is not sustainable.

Extended period of limitation - It is seen that the components of demand on technology transfer and with regard to R&D cess were the subject matter of an earlier show cause notice dated 17.10.2008 issued to the appellant covering an earlier period 2005-06 & 2006-07 - the extended period in the present case is not invocable which will make these components of the impugned demand time-barred because the show cause notice was issued on 05/04/2010 for the period up to March 2008.

Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.