2020 (9) TMI 790

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r, Service Tax, Kolkata, pertaining to the period 10.09.2004 to 15.02.2005. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant assessee has entered into User Agreements dated 1st April, 2004 with its clients whereby the clients were granted the right to sell the goods using the trade mark 'LUX' owned by the appellant in return of the consideration mentioned in the said agreement. Show Cause Notice dated 11.10.2007 (SCN) was issued proposing demand of service tax under the category of "Management Consultancy Services" for the period 01.04.2002 to 09.09.2004 and under the category of "Intellectual Property Services" for the subsequent period 10.09.2004 to 15.02.2005 in respect of the consideration amount received by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CESTA-DEL * IIM, Kolkata vs. CST, Kolkata Final Order no. 76902/2018 dated 12.11.2018 * AB Hotels Ltd vs. CST, Delhi 2018-TIOL-1294-CESTAT-DEL * Reliance Industries Ltd vs. CCE 2016-TIOL-CESTAT-MUM He also disputed the demand on the ground of limitation contending that there was no fraud or suppression. On the same counts, he contested the imposition of penalty. 5. The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue submitted that the appellant changed the agreement on 15.02.2005 with retrospective date of 10.09.2004 to deceive the Revenue by reducing the value of taxable services. He supported the findings of the Ld. Commissioner and submitted that service tax is rightly payable under the category of Intellectual Property Services and that merely bec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e observation made by the Mumbai Bench in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd.(Supra) which is directly on the issue involved in the present case:- "11. In so far as the agreement with Investa Technologies S. A. R. L. is concerned the same was entered into on 14.8.2004, prior to IPR service being brought into the net of service tax w.e.f. 10.9.2004. The service itself having been rendered prior to the introduction of the levy, the mere fact that payment 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X