9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 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 applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... definition 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 paten ..... 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 recogni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a right under any law for the time being in force In India and whether any law other than enacted law In force In India will come within the meaning of "any law for the time being in force". 9. We are prima facie not in agreement with the argument of the appellant in view of Section 11(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Section 27(2) of the said Act in view of the fact that the trademark owner is legally entitled to enforce certain rights against any other person using such trademark even though the trademark Is not registered In India. Therefore, we feel that the appellants have not made a case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of dues arising from the impugned order for admission of the appeal. Therefore, we direct the appellants to m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
