9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Liability of service tax on royalty payments for technical know-how. 2. Interpretation of technical know-how fee and royalty payments. 3. Applicability of service tax rules on foreign service providers. 4. Consideration of royalty as a share of profit or service. Analysis: Issue 1: Liability of service tax on royalty payments for technical know-how The case involved a dispute regarding the liability of service tax on royalty payments made by an Indian company to a foreign company for technical know-how. The Revenue contended that rendering technical know-how amounts to rendering service as a consulting engineer, making the recipient liable to pay service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand for service tax and penalty, stating that royalty payments cannot be considered technical know-how fees. The Revenue appealed this decision. Issue 2: Interpretation of technical know-how fee and royalty payments The agreement between the parties outlined two aspects: technical know-how rendered for a lump sum consideration and royalty payment on manufactured items. The Revenue argued that royalty represents the value of service, while the respondents claimed it to be a share of profit. The Tribunal analyzed the contract and concluded that royalty charged was a fee for mutual benefits/profits, not a consideration for service, citing previous case laws to support the decision. Issue 3: Applicability of service tax rules on foreign service providers The Revenue highlighted an amendment in the Service Tax Rules, making the service recipient liable to pay tax if the provider is in a foreign country. The dispute centered on whether the technical know-how provided by the foreign company constituted a taxable service. The Tribunal examined the nature of the payments and determined that royalty for the right to use a trademark is a transaction in property, not consultancy or advice, thus not liable to service tax. Issue 4: Consideration of royalty as a share of profit or service Both parties presented arguments regarding the nature of royalty payments, with the Revenue asserting it as payment for a service and the respondents viewing it as profit-sharing. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments to support the view that royalty, in this case, was a fee for mutual benefits/profits and not a consideration for a service, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, ruling that the royalty payments for technical know-how were not subject to service tax as they were considered a fee for mutual benefits/profits, not a payment for a service. The memorandum of cross-objection filed by the respondents was disposed of accordingly.
|
