TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nate Benches of this Tribunal wherein it has been held that the intellectual property service which is made the subject matter of service tax levy is transferred prior to the date of introduction of taxable entry under the head Intellectual Property Services w.e.f. 10.09.2004, no service tax is leviable - the service tax cannot be demanded from the appellant in the present case when the subject service was rendered prior to the introduction of taxable entry under the head Intellectual Property Service i.e. 10.9.2004. With regard to other issue as contended by the Ld. DR that the agreement was modified on 15.02.2005 retrospectively from 10.09.2004 to reduce the value of taxable service, we are of the view that the said aspect is not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Intellectual Property Services for the subsequent period 10.09.2004 to 15.02.2005 in respect of the consideration amount received by the appellant in terms of subject User Agreement. The Ld. Commissioner while adjudicating the SCN dropped the demand proposed in the category of Management Consultancy Services with the observation that the same service cannot be classified in more than one category of taxable service. He, however, confirmed the demand of service tax under the category of Intellectual Property Services . 3. Sri Ravi Raghavan, Ld.Advocate appeared for the appellant and Sri. S.Mukhopadhyay, Ld. D.R. appeared for the Revenue. 4. The Learned Advocate appearing for the assessee disputed the demand under the category ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the findings of the Ld. Commissioner and submitted that service tax is rightly payable under the category of Intellectual Property Services and that merely because the initial agreement was dated 01.04.2004, the assessee could not claim that tax is not payable for the subsequent period. He accordingly prayed that the appeal be rejected. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. On perusal of the case decisions relied by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant assessee, we find that the issue stands settled in favour of the appellant assessee by series of decisions rendered by the various coordinate Benches of this Tribunal wherein it has been held that the intellectual property service which is made the subject matter of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 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 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 Appellant's own case reported in 2010 (19) STR 807 as also by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CCE vs. Consulting Engineering Services India (P) Ltd 2013 (30) STR 586. As the service in the case of Investa Technologies S.A.R.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
