TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was held that None of these services can be called intellectual property service - the services would not fall under IPR services. The impugned order is modified to the extent of only setting aside the classification of the service without disturbing the order passed setting aside the demand - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - ST/626/2009 - 41704/2017 - Dated:- 11-8-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri T.R. Ramesh, Advocate for the appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per: Bench Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of Power Shift Transaction and Parts thereof under technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t their activities would fall under the category of Intellectual property services. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel, Shri T.R. Ramesh adverted to the various clauses of the agreement entered with M/s. General Motors, USA. He submitted that the agreement was entered on 02.18.1981. As per the agreement clause 2, M/s. GM, USA has to furnish to the appellant, technical information on licensed components and licensed products. It is also provided that GM, USA has to provide product service information and identification listings of basic manufacturing and inspection equipment. That such information and identification shall not be deemed to be Technical Information for the purpose of Agreement. Thus for the Techni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l know-how are also stated. It is seen that payments are made in a few instalments and the last 1/3rd of the payment is to be made within 30 days of commercial production of that series. Clause 3 speaks about technical assistance to be furnished by GM. Royalty is paid for technical assistance. Clause 3.1 states that during the period of licence, GM shall assign an English speaking representative to the appellant plant, for the purpose of facilitating the furnishing of technical information and assistance. The salaries of such persons are to be paid by the appellants. Clause 6 of the agreement stipulates for payment of 5% of the Net selling price on each product sold during the licence period. The department is of the view that such payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts, etc. None of these services can be called intellectual property service. It is only the amount paid in terms of the Article 8.1 of the agreement, which can be said to be for intellectual property tax as this amount was for the use by the appellant of the technical know-how developed by M/s. BPB Industries, U.K. However, show cause notice seeks to charge Service Tax on the amount paid by the appellant to M/s. BPB in terms of the Article 8.2 of the agreement, which, as is clear from this clause, is for technical assistance as specified in Annexure-II to the agreement and not for royalty charge and as such, the same would not attract Service Tax under IPR service. The plea of the ld. Joint CDR that the amount being paid by the appellant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
