TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he rights to use "AREVA" trademark for which they were required to pay licence fee on quarterly basis. Revenue was of the view that the service so received by the appellant from the foreign company is liable to service tax in the hands of the appellants as a receiver of such service as per provisions of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, Revenue initiated proceedings for recovery of service tax on amounts paid by the appellant to the foreign company during the period January 2010 to September 2010. After due proceedings a demand of Rs. 2,24,73,879/- is confirmed against the appellant along with interest and penalties. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed this appeal before the Tribunal along with an applicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efinition of taxable service includes only such IPRs (except copyright) and are prescribed under law for the time being in force. As the phrase "law for the time being in force" implies such laws as are applicable in India, IPRs covered under Indian law in force at present alone are chargeable to service tax and IPRs like integrated circuits or undisclosed information (not covered by Indian law) would not be covered under taxable services". 4. He also relies on the clarification issued in June 2012, by C.B.E. & C. in the context of the new levy of service tax based on 'Negative List Concept' and the said clarification reads as under :- "6.3.2 Is the IPR required to be registered in India? Would the temporary transfer of a patent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owner of the trademark. He submits that the clarification issued in June 2012 also does not deal with the issue whether services relating to unregistered trademark is liable to pay tax as per entries in force in the Finance Act, 1994 before the said date. This clarification also is in the context of patent as may be seen from the question and answer given. He argues that if the trademark "AREVA" is used by any person in India the appellants have their legal rights for stopping the person from using such trademark. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the impugned trademark is not a right under any law for the time being in force, in India. 7. We have considered the arguments on both sides. We note that the Trademarks Act, 1999 recogniz....