2017 (11) TMI 1015 - HC - Service Tax

Intellectual Property service - It is alleged that the Respondent has allowed M/s. Talareja Trade to use brand name PahiliDhar for marketing country liquor manufactured by the Respondent - Held that - The Respondent is holding CL1 License for manufacturing country liquor and was desirous of obtaining higher returns on the investment made by it on its country liquor plant. The Respondent decided to appoint M/s.Talareja Trade as sole selling agent for the sell of country liquor produced by it. In fact it is noted that M/s. Talareja Trade has become c class members of the Respondent Cooperative Sugar Factory. After having perused of the relevant clauses of both the agreements, we find that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that no Intellectual Property Service has been given by the Respondent cannot be said to be perverse - By the agreements, M/s.Talareja Trade were appointed as sole selling agents of the country liquor which was to be manufactured by the Respondent - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of agreements for country liquor sale and brand name usage; Demand for service tax under Business Auxiliary Services and Intellectual Property Services; Applicability of Intellectual Property Services in selling agency agreements.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Bombay High Court dealt with an appeal against a Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal order. The case involved a Cooperative Sugar Factory engaged in manufacturing sugar, molasses, and country liquor under the brand name 'PahiliDhar'. The factory entered into selling agency agreements with an agent for marketing the liquor. The Revenue issued a show cause notice demanding service tax under Business Auxiliary Services and Intellectual Property Services due to the usage of the brand name by the agent. The Tribunal confirmed the demand for Intellectual Property Services but dropped the Business Auxiliary Services demand.

Upon careful consideration, the High Court analyzed the agreements and found that the Tribunal correctly interpreted them. The Court noted that the agreements aimed to maximize production and sales for mutual profit, rather than providing Intellectual Property Services. The Court observed that the agent was appointed as the sole selling agent for the liquor, becoming a member of the factory. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's finding of no Intellectual Property Service being rendered was based on a thorough review of the agreements and the factual circumstances. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose based on the documentary evidence presented.

In summary, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the agreements focused on maximizing profit through sales rather than providing Intellectual Property Services. The Court's analysis highlighted the specific clauses in the agreements and the nature of the relationship between the factory and the agent, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the lack of merit and substantial legal questions.