TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, LTU, Chennai ors. [ 2018 (2) TMI 148 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and M/S. AREVA T D INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI. [ 2018 (4) TMI 1944 - CESTAT CHENNAI] relied upon by the Learned Advocate for the appellant, it has been held that in order to be categorized for the purpose of Service Tax under Intellectual Property Rights, such rights should have been registered with the Trademark / Patent authority in India as per the law for the time being in force. That is to say, as long as it is not legally recognized by the process under the Act, the same could not be considered as recognized by the law for the time being in force. In the case on hand, the appellant has catego ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubt about the payment of Royalty and Technical Knowhow fees, issued a letter dated 11.04.2011, to which the appellant replied vide its letter dated 14.06.2011 stating clearly that the Royalty and Technical Knowhow fees were paid for the Technical Knowhow provided by the foreign companies through design and drawing for carrying out production and in consideration of the rights granted to them to use the technical knowledge. 3. The Revenue, entertaining a further doubt that the appellant had not paid the Service Tax immediately on the above payments, issued Show Cause Notices, as per the tabular column at Page 3 of the impugned Orders-in-Original, proposing thereby to demand Service Tax on the provisions made for the above payments along w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T.R. 121 (Tri. Mumbai)]; (ii) M/s. Alstom T and D India Ltd. and Schneider Electric Infrastructure Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, LTU, Chennai ors. [2018-VIL-88-CESTAT-CHE-ST]; (iii) M/s. Areva T D India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai [Final Order Nos. 41132-41142/2018 dated 13.04.2018 CESTAT Chennai] 5. Per contra, Learned Deputy Commissioner for the Revenue, relied on the findings of the lower authority. 6. Heard both sides, perused the documents placed on record and we have also gone through the various orders relied upon during the course of arguments. 7. We find that in the above orders of the CESTAT Benches relied upon by the Learned Advocate for the appellant, it has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
