9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at a place outside India. As per clause 4.2 of the contract appellant has certain rights to carry out modifications in the technology other than making any changes in the clone. Further as per the clause 3.1 of this agreement certain fixed cost has to be paid by the appellant to M/s. Eugenex Biotechnologies. As per clause 5.4 of the agreement, periodical royalties have also to be paid on regiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and H.K. Thakur, Member (T) Shri Jigar Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Anil Gidwani, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER This stay petition has been filed by the appellant with respect to O-I-A No. AHM-SVTAX-000-APP-070-14-15, dated 16-6-2014. 2. Shri Jigar Shah (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that as per the agreemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IPR Services. He also relied upon a stay order passed by CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Thermax Limited v. CCE, Pune - 2013 (30) S.T.R. 424 (Tri.-Mum.) wherein in a similar situation a complete waiver has been given to the appellant in that case. 3. Shri Anil Gidwani (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that technology has not been transferred to the appellant permanently by M/s. Eugen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iodical royalties have also to be paid on regional basis by the appellant to M/s. Eugenex Biotechnologies for a period of 7 years. Prima facie, it appears that transfer of patent right and technology are not permanently transferred to the appellants. However, appellant has relied upon Para 9.1, (reproduced below), of C.B.E. C. Circular No. 80/10/2004-S.T., dated 17-9-2004 to argue that IPR Servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under taxable services. 5. It is observed from the above clarification that only those IPRs procured under Indian laws are to be covered under IPR services and those IPRs not covered by the Indian Laws would not be covered under taxable under IPR Services. In view of clarification issued by C.B.E. C. appellant has made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of the confirmed demands an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
