Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1370 - CESTAT MUMBAIReverse charge mechanism - Intellectual property service - scope of the levy - section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 - Held that:- Doubtlessly, section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 deems the recipient of a taxable service to be the provider to fasten the obligation to discharge tax. Undoubtedly, the taxable services that are not covered by the first two of the groupings in rule 3 of Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006 deems service to have been brought within India when the recipient is located in India. It is, thus, amply clear that this is a residuary clubbing that does not specify the specific services. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that the said Rules are notified, inter alia, in exercise of powers under section 93 of Finance Act, 1994 which enables the Central Government to exempt taxable services from the levy. Consequently, such of those transactions that are not amenable to inclusion as provision of services from outside to India are to be considered as exempt. In the decision, in re Catapro Technologies Ltd, [2016 (12) TMI 100 - CESTAT MUMBAI], the essentiality of coverage under the Indian laws for 'intellectual property' to be acknowledged has been articulated. The nature of the 'intellectual property' and its enforceability in the present dispute does not find a place in the records commencing with the show cause notice. The crystalisation of the tax liability on the appellant does not have the authority of law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|