TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. Mere omission to furnish information does not amount to suppression of fact - extended period not invocable. The matter has to go back to the adjudicating authority to consider afresh the classification of the intellectual property rights received by the appellant under a particular category of IPR and the law which is applicable to such intellectual property in India - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Application No. ST/Stay/1425 of 2012 and Appeal No. ST/429 of 2012 - Order Nos. A/33/2013/CSTB/C-I and S/87/2013/CSTB/C-I - Dated:- 21-11-2012 - P.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER AND ANIL CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER. K. Subash Chandiran for the Appellant. A.K. Prabhakar for the Respondent. ORDER P.R. Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/2008, the appellant replied back saying the activity is not covered under the Computer network services. Again on 29/01/2009, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner wrote a letter directing the appellant to determine the correct classification and pay service tax to which vide letter dated 02/03/2009, the appellant replied saying that the services rendered by them is not covered under the service tax net. Thereafter, on 27/05/2009, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner asked for a copy of the contract entered into by the appellant with Mancozeb European Consortium and the same was provided by the appellant on 13/07/2009. Again on 19/01/2010, the jurisdictional Superintendent wrote to the appellant asking for details of the payments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case and hence, the demands pertaining to the extended period of time is not sustainable in law. 3.1 The ld. Counsel further submits that in the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has not classified the activity undertaken by the appellant under any particular intellectual property right i.e. whether it comes under patents, trademarks, designs, or any other intellectual property right. Without specifying the class of the intellectual property (in respect of which there is a law for the time being in force in India) service tax cannot be demanded. It is the contention of the appellant that the service received by the appellant does not come under the category of any intellectual property right service such as, patents, trade mark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce includes only such IPRs (except copyright) that 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 note be covered under taxable services. 9.2 A permanent transfer of intellectual property right does not amount to rendering of service. On such transfer, the person selling these rights no longer remains a 'holder of intellectual property right so as to come under the purview of taxable service. Thus, there would not be any service tax on permanent tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he show-cause notice in this case has been issued on 26/02/2010. From the records and submissions made by the appellant, it is clear that right from December 2007 onwards the appellant's activities were known to the department and the department was confused under which category the service tax is leviable on the services received by the appellant. It was changed from BAS to Computer network services and finally to intellectual property rights service. In view of this factual position, the question of suppression of any facts by the appellant does not arise at all. The argument that the appellant omitted to furnish information regarding access fee payment for procuring data from the foreign service provider by itself cannot constitute s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
