2010 (2) TMI 234 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty- Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of bearings using Brand name FAG of holding company. Penalty equal to service tax amount demanded has been imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 and penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994 have been imposed. Held that- In the light of the decision of Indian National Ship Owner s Association vs. UOI 2009 -TMI - 32013 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, the demand for service tax from the receiver for the period prior to 18.4.2006 is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand for service tax and penalties based on the use of brand name and technical know-how.
2. Classification of services received by the appellant as franchisee services.
3. Applicability of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on the demand for service tax.

Issue 1:
The case involved a demand for service tax of Rs. 2,12,98,624/- with penalties imposed under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994, due to the use of the brand name FAG by the appellant, which was deemed to bring them under the category of franchisee services. The appellant, engaged in bearing manufacturing using the brand name FAG and technical know-how from a subsidiary collaborator, was required to discharge the service tax liability as a receiver of services.

Issue 2:
The appellant argued that the services received should be classified as intellectual property rights (IPR) services rather than franchisee services. Despite the advocate's arguments challenging the classification of services, the tribunal did not delve into the classification issue. However, the tribunal acknowledged the appellant's contention that the services were IPR-related and not franchisee services, questioning the logic adopted by the Commissioner in categorizing them as such.

Issue 3:
The tribunal considered the applicability of a decision by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case, which stated that demands for service tax from the receiver for the period prior to a specific date were not sustainable. Citing the case of Indian National Ship Owner's Association vs. UOI, the tribunal found that the demand for service tax from the appellant for the period prior to a certain date was not valid. The tribunal agreed with the relevance of the Bombay High Court decision to the present case, leading to the appeal's success solely on the ground of limitation.

This judgment addressed the issues of service tax demand and penalties based on brand name and technical know-how usage, the classification of services as franchisee or IPR-related, and the impact of a Bombay High Court decision on the demand for service tax. Ultimately, the appeal succeeded due to the limitation on demanding service tax for the period before a specified date, as established by the Bombay High Court ruling.