TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 819
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under the category of GTA/IPR/Consulting Engineering services and paying service tax thereon and they are also engaged in the manufacturing of struts, shock absorbers, front forks, gas spring window balancers etc. M/s. Showa Corporation, Japan entered into a contract with the appellant-assessee on 11.03.2002, in which the Industrial Property Right i.e. Patent, Utility model, Brand Service, Design, Trademark, Symbol were transferred to the assessee-appellant and percentage of the amount of sale was to be paid as royalty. The Revenue is of the view that the said transfer of technical know-how is covered under Intellectual Property Right services. Therefore, the appellant assessee is liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....41) STR 121 (Tri. Mum.). He further submitted that no evidence has been produced by the Revenue that patents are registered to Showa Corporation Japan in India. Therefore, it is not Intellectual Property Rights hence, no levy of service tax can be confirmed against them. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR opposed the contention of the ld. Counsel and draws our attention to the CBEC Circular No.80/10/2004-ST dated 17.09.2004 to say that Design, Trademark, Brand Service, Symbols etc. have been recognised by the Government of India, therefore, they are liable to pay service tax thereon. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions of both sides, we find that the Design, Trademark, Symbol, Bra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ights except Copy Right that are prescribed under the law for the time being in force, as the term 'time being in force' implies that, as are applicable in India, and Intellectual Property Rights covered under Indian law in force alone are chargeable to service tax and Intellectual Property Rights like Integrated Circuits or Undisclosed Information would not cover under the taxable services. Admittedly, Trade Mark rights which have been used by the appellant-assessee are not registered in India, therefore, the same are not liable to tax under IPR service, in the light of the decision in the case of Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited (supra), wherein this Tribunal has observed as under :- "5. We have heard both sides and exami....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are as under : (a) Rochem Separation Systems (India) Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service tax, Mumbai I - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 112 (Tri.-Mum.) [para 8]; (b) Whirlpool of India Limited v. C.C.E & S.T., Delhi - 2016-VIL-57-CESTAT-DEL-ST [para 7]; (c) Tata Consultancy Services Limited v. C.S.T., Mumbai - 2015-TIOL-2370-CESTAT-MUM - 2016 (41) S.T.R. 121 (Tri.) [para 4.1]; (d) Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. C.C.E & S.T., Bangalore - 2016-VIL-480-CESTAT-BLR-ST [para 6.7.1]; (e) Reliance Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S. Tax, Mumbai - 2016-TIOL-1654-CESTAT-MUM - 2016 (44) S.T.R. 82 (Tri.) [para 2]. 7. It has been held that to be categorized for service tax purpose under IPR, such right should have been registered with trade mark/patent auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ving been rendered prior to the introduction of the levy, the mere fact that payments for the same were made on a staggered basis over a period of time cannot be ground for levying service tax merely with reference to the date on which payments were being made. We find that during the relevant period the issue as to whether a transaction is leviable to service tax and if so at what rate was required to be reckoned with reference to the date when the service was rendered and not with reference to the date on which payment is made. The law in this regard is settled by the decision of the CESTAT reported in - 2008 (10) STR 243 - 2008 TIOL-283-CESTAT-AHM which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the appellant's own case re....