9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice' for undertaking 'development of pharmaceutical stable coleman hydrochloride tablets' under agreement with foreign entity that were claimed to have been exported. The appellant had preferred claims totaling to Rs. 54,82,697 for the four quarters in the period under dispute which the original authority partially allowed for the first two quarters to the extent of Rs. 16,68,766 while rejecting Rs. 2,29,830 thereof for lack of 'nexus' and the claims for the other two quarters in entirety for not being in conformity with rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. On challenge before the first appellate authority by M/s Getz Pharma Research Pvt Ltd on the rejection of Rs. 38,13,895 and by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Service Tax over the san ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been settled by the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - I v. Sai Life Sciences Ltd [2016 (42) STR 882 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and that the decision of the Tribunal in Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - I v. Advinus Therapeutics Ltd [2017 (51) STR 298 (Tri.-Mumbai)] had, on examination of law and facts, set out entitlement to claim monetization of accumulated credit. 4. Per contra, Learned Authorised Representative submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in Sai Life Science Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - I [2019-TIOL-2642-CESTAT-MUM] had, in relation to undertaking of 'drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics standalone services (DMPK)' under contract research agreements, held that two decisions relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der inasmuch as the first appellate authority has held the non-eligibility to be treated as exports arising from 'intellectual property rights' in the taxable territory. The first appellate authority has also recorded that '7. I have carefully gone through the fact of each case, all the four impugned orders, four Appeal Memoranda and -submissions made by the appellant department. The common issue to be decided in the subject appeals is whether or not the output services provided by the Respondent falls under the ambit of export of service in accordance with Rule 4 of POP Rules and Rule 6A of the ST Rules. I find that the appellant department had filed the two appeals well within the time. In respect of these two appeals, the Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to tax. 6. It appears to us that the first appellate authority had not appreciated the issue in dispute before it which is essential in determining applicability of rule 4 of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. Instead, the first appellate authority ruled on the taxability devolving on the appellant as 'intermediary', under rule 9 of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, which was neither proposed in show cause notice nor proposed in appeal of jurisdictional Commissioner of Service Tax. In the light of the elaboration on 'intellectual property rights', we find no reasoning as to the manner in which such rights had been created in India. A right relating to 'intellectual property' is not, as expressed by the first appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
