9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entire amount of royalty received was not sustainable in law. As regards the question what should be the consideration for usage of brand name, there were methods available for doing this by expert in the field - The department does not seem to have utilized the services of expert in assessing the value of the brand and its usage - In the absence of such an assessment, it was difficult to sustain the impugned demand - The appellant themselves had amended their MOU retrospectively, wherein it had been provided that the royalty was payable only for foregoing their rights in operation in certain routes. Waiver of Pre-deposit – Pre-deposits were waived - The authority should have examined whether such retrospective amendment of the MOU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest thereon and proposing to impose penalties. Though the appellant contested the levy of Service Tax, the demand was confirmed along with interest and by imposing equivalent amount of penalty apart from penalties under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Board of Directors of Air India as also AICL in the meeting held on 16.03.2008 decided to modify the MOU dated 24.03.2006 as per which the revenue earned by the AICL is shared between Air India and AICL in the ratio of 25: 75 respectively, retrospectively from 1.4.2005 in return for the forbearance on the part of Air India on not operating on certain routes hithert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant for three purposes:- (a) Foregoing the rights to operate in the Gulf region. (b) Allowing M/s AICL to use the brand name of Air India, and (c) For sharing the domain knowledge. However, the Service Tax demand has been made on the whole amount of royalty without explaining how foregoing of rights or sharing of domain knowledge would come under the Intellectual Property Right Services. There is not even a whisper about the services rendered in this regard by the appellant to M/s AICL. Therefore, confirmation of demand on the entire amount of royalty received is not sustainable in law. 5.2 As regards the question what should be the consideration for usage of brand name, there are methods available for doing this by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
