2008 (6) TMI 191 - AT - Service Tax

Application for waiver of pre-deposit on the ground that the royalty paid by the appellant to their foreign collaborators is covered by intellectual Property Services introduced w.e.f. 10-9-04 earlier SCN was issued to cover the appellant under category of Consulting engineers services that notice is overlapping regarding period - submission that the entire facts were in the knowledge of Revenue and the present show cause notice was partially barred by limitation stay is granted partly

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalties
2. Royalty payment to foreign collaborators
3. Bar on limitation for show cause notice

Analysis:

Issue 1: Dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalties
The appellant sought to dispense with the pre-deposit condition of Service Tax and penalties amounting to Rs. 23,45,507/-, arguing that the royalty paid to their foreign collaborators falls under intellectual Property Services introduced from 10-9-04. The authorities relied on a Tribunal decision in a similar case. The appellant had already deposited Rs. 3 lakhs as per a stay order by the Commissioner (Appeals). The advocate argued that the duty for the period March'05 to Sept.'05 would be around Rs. 12 lakhs, with no financial hardship claimed by the appellant. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit another Rs. 7 lakhs within eight weeks for the appeal to be heard, with a compliance check scheduled for a later date.

Issue 2: Royalty payment to foreign collaborators
The appellant's case revolved around the classification of royalty payment to foreign collaborators as intellectual Property Services. The appellant argued that previous show cause notices, covering periods up to March'05, indicated that the Revenue was aware of the facts, making the current notice partially time-barred. The advocate contended that the current notice for the period Oct.'04 to Sept.'05 overlapped with the previous notices until March'05. The Tribunal considered these arguments in the context of the pre-deposit condition and directed the appellant to make an additional deposit.

Issue 3: Bar on limitation for show cause notice
The advocate highlighted that the Revenue had issued two previous show cause notices before the current one, proposing confirmation of service by treating the payments as consulting engineers services. The appellant argued that the previous notices indicated that the Revenue was aware of the facts, making the current notice partially barred by limitation. The Tribunal considered this argument and directed the appellant to deposit an additional amount for the appeal to proceed, with a compliance deadline set for a future date.