2017 (6) TMI 276 - AT - Service Tax

Royalty - whether royalty received by the appellants from M/s. MDB Chemicals for providing technical knowhow for manufacture of 1,2-Methylenedioxybenzene is liable to service tax under the category of Intellectual Property service ? - Held that - the right that is transferred is the technical know-how which may be a service but is not in relation to intellectual property service which pertains to intellectual property rights - The enforceability of the right vis-a-vis the recipient is protected by the law of contract for the limited purpose that the statute has been legislated for. That enforceability does not subsist against any other entity in the absence of registration under the patent, trademark or design protection laws of the country - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether royalty received for providing technical knowhow is liable to service tax under "Intellectual Property service".

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolved around the liability of royalty received by the appellants for providing technical knowhow to M/s. MDB Chemicals under the category of "Intellectual Property service" for manufacturing 1,2-Methylenedioxybenzene. The appellant's counsel referred to a previous favorable decision by the Tribunal and presented various case laws and circulars to support their argument. The Assistant Commissioner for the revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that in the appellant's previous case, a similar issue had been decided in their favor. The Tribunal emphasized that the taxable service under "Intellectual Property service" is related to the holder of intellectual property rights and the enforceability of such rights. The Tribunal highlighted that the provider must be the holder of the intellectual property right, which is enforceable against all others, not just the recipient of the service. The Tribunal clarified that the technical know-how provided by the appellants did not constitute intellectual property service as it did not involve proprietary rights enforceable against others.

The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and circulars to support its conclusion that the demand for service tax on the royalty received was without legal authority. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal based on the precedent set in the appellant's previous case. The judgment was pronounced on 03.05.2017 by the Tribunal members, Ramesh Nair and Raju.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the definition of taxable service under "Intellectual Property service" and the requirement of enforceable intellectual property rights held by the service provider. The judgment emphasized the importance of legal enforceability and specific identification of intellectual property rights for determining the tax liability on services provided.