TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , atleast, in respect of service tax liability, as in the case of service tax liability on any new services, it comes into effect only from the date which is notified by the Central Government by notification. - notification which was issued for taxing an amount paid as royalty under Intellectual Property Service was w.e.f. 10.9.2004. If that be so, service tax liability would not arise on the amount received by the appellant during the period 20.4.2004 to 10.9.2004. - impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/252/2009-Mum - - - Dated:- 15-4-2015 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. P. S. Pruthi, Member (Technical),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Mayu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring on behalf of the appellant would take us through the entire case records. He would submit that the appellant had received royalty from M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. It is his submissions that the question involved in this case is whether the service tax liability would be required to be discharged for the period 1.4.2004 to 10.9.2004 under the category of Intellectual Property Services . He would submit that the said services were brought into service tax from 10.9.2004. He would submit that both the lower authorities have incorrectly appreciated the facts, as the service tax liability arises on the appellant even for the royalty amounts, which were paid for the period in question. He would submit that the liability would not arise a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during material period in question was as royalty for the use of the brand which is registered in the name of the appellant assessee. 7. We peruse the agreement entered by the appellant with M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. The said agreement assigned brand/trade name M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. for a period of 4 years i.e. 20.4.2004 to 31.3.2008, specific articles of the said agreement, which need to be read is the consideration to be paid by M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. to the appellant. We reproduce the same. The considerations for the use of trade-name RMD , the Second Party shall pay Royalty from 20th April, 2004 to 31st March, 2008, i.e. for a further period of 4 years, and shall be paid at Percentages of the Net Total Sales e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich came into tax net from 10.9.2004. It is seen from the records that the lower authorities have sought to recover the service tax liability from the appellant by invoking the provisional collection of tax to hold that service tax liability arises. In our view, this is incorrect, atleast, in respect of service tax liability, as in the case of service tax liability on any new services, it comes into effect only from the date which is notified by the Central Government by notification. In the case in hand, it is undisputed that the notification which was issued for taxing an amount paid as royalty under Intellectual Property Service was w.e.f. 10.9.2004. If that be so, service tax liability would not arise on the amount received by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
