2006 (11) TMI 583

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng penalty of Rs. 500 under section 75A of the Act, and penalty of Rs. 100 for every day under section 76 of the Act not exceeding the amount of service tax amount payable, imposing penalty of Rs. 1,000 under section 77 and imposing penalty of Rs. 73,47,984 under section 78 of the Act, the appellant seeks interim stay of the impugned order. The learned authorised representative for the appellant contended that what was agreed to between the parties was not rendering of any service but it was transfer of technical know-how. The learned authorised representative placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore v. Pinnacle Industries Ltd. reported in [2006] 3 STT 324, more particularly on paragraph 4 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... were owned, controlled or developed by the licensor and which were necessary for the manufacture and development of the licensed products and processes for such manufacture. The term "patent rights" was also defined and the licensed products were described in annexure I to the agreement. The licence was granted to enable the licensee to manufacture, assemble, use and sell licensed products and for that purpose to use the "know-how", the inventions covered by the patent rights, the improvement of licensor communicated to licensee and any confidential information of licensor communicated to licensee, which were collectively described as "IP Rights" in clause 2.1 of agreement. Consideration for the licence and kno .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o the licensed products. All technical documents and information were to remain the property of licensor during the subsistence of the agreement under clause 3.6, and the licensee undertook not to pass the documents and information to third parties without the prior consent of the licensor. Clause 5 dealt with trademarks and patents, which are clear instances of intellectual property. Under the said clause ownership of patent, trade marks and trade name was retained with the licensor. Under clause 6.3, the licensor was entitled to inspect the licensed products manufactured by the licensee. Under clause 12, the agreement was to be treated as strictly confidential and it was also provided that technical data and know-how were not to be discl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X