Intellectual Property Services Decided Case Laws

SKOL Breweries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad
Service Tax: Intellectual Property Service: Pre-deposit: Upon consideration of all aspects of the arrangement between SKOL and FIPL, prima facie there are enough indicators to show that it was a payment as Consideration for the transfer of Intellectual Property by SKOL to FIPL to enable the latter to manufacture beer and dispose of the same under "FOSTER'S" brand name owned by SKOL in terms of the agreement. It would, therefore, appear that the appellant should pay service tax on the amount collected by them from FIPL for the period of dispute under sub-clause (zzr) of Clause 105 of Sec.65 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant should pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 75 lakhs.


CCE, Coimbatore Vs. L.G. Balakrishnan & Bros. Ltd.
Service Tax: Intellectual Property Rights Service: The service rendered to the assessees falls under the category of Intellectual Property Rights Service which came into services tax net only with effect from 10.09.04, and not a Consulting Engineering Services leviable to services tax prior to 10.09.04, is correct for the reason that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. B.E. GELB Consultancy services Vs. CCE, Coimbatore The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.


Commissioner of S.T., Ahmedabad Vs. Trumac Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Transfer of technical know-how : And royalty payment will not be leviable to service tax under the category of consulting engineers. When a new entry is introduced covering a particular activity without amending the earlier entry, it cannot be said that the earlier entry covered the subsequently introduced entry. 


Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. CCEx , New Delhi
Intellectual Property Right : Section 65 (55a) of the Finance Act, 1994 which is a broad definition which includes not only the Trade Marks which are registered under the law but also those Trade Marks which are not registered under the law but are recognized under the law Contention of the applicants that the so-called Intellectual Property Right transferred by them for consideration was not in respect of Trade Mark registered under the law not acceptable. The applicant had not made out the case fit for waiver of demand made under the impugned order. 


Commissioner of Service Tax, Faridabad Vs. G.E.C. Avery Ltd.
Technical know how : In the case of Composite Contract Agreement in respect of know-how all the payments accept those which are specifically related with license and which did not any form of technical assistance, including thereunder will have to be separated, no tax would be chargeable in respect of such licensing fee attributable to the rights convert under the agreement. The Service Tax will be chargeable only in respect of technical assistance which was contemplated under the agreement for being rendered at the plant. 


ABB Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Service Tax, Bangalore
Extension of Stay : Appellants having already pre-deposited the service tax amounts waiver of pre deposit of penalty amount till the disposal of the appeal granted. Revenue barred from recovery even after the lapse of 180 days in view of several judgements of the Supreme Court and the Tribunal. 


John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune - III
Stay: Intellectual Property Service: It is anomalous on the part of the Department to treat the character of the part of the services rendered/received by the appellants differently for the post and pre 10-9-2004 periods, when the fact is that the Technical Collaboration Agreement dated 17-10-1998 has not undergone any change and remains unaltered during these periods. Principles of Natural Justice violated while calculating the service tax liability. Prima facie strong case made out.