TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of credit notes is therefore only an accounting transaction to recognize the liability of the appellant towards their customer to know the excess payment lying with them. It has to be kept in mind that BIS is set by the Government of India with the Governing Council and Members consisting of Ministers and Members of Parliament and Secretaries of concerned Departments. There is also no allegation that BIS have not discharged tax liability on the initial amount received by the clients - demand set aside. Demand on tax in respect of royalty charges - Held that: - the matter has already been decided by this Bench in respect of very same assessee BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI [2018 (4) TMI 1106 - CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssayers for Hallmarking. In adjudication original authority confirmed total tax liability of ₹ 3,29,722/- with interest thereon and imposed equal penalty which was upheld by the lower appellate authority vide OIA dt. 11.2.2011 (impugned order). Aggrieved appellants are in appeal. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Advocate Shri M.Karthikeyan made oral and written submissions which can be broadly summarized as under : i) In respect of service tax demand of ₹ 1,81,606, he submits that on certain occasions the customers for whom the appellant has rendered the services of inspection and testing would pay the charges in excess, along with appropriate service tax. In such cases, service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of the appellant towards such customer, who has made the excess payment. From the above facts, it may be observed that the demand confirmed against the appellant amounts to double jeopardy as service tax has already been paid by the appellant on the said amounts. (c) With regard to the service tax demand of ₹ 1,48,116/- royalty collected from assayers or hallmark centres, Ld. Advocate submitted a copy of reply to the SCN dt. 20.2.2009 wherein the explanation in respect of various credit notes had been given by the appellant. In para 4.2 of the said reply reference has been made to credit note 6700061 dt. 21.3.2007 for an amount of ₹ 9623/. Ld. Advocate draws our attention to page 29, 30, 31 of the paper book in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. Advocate that this is only an accounting convenience that has been adopted by the appellant and that raising of credit notes by the appellant on the customer who has made excess payment will not have the effect of nullifying the service tax already paid by them to the Government on the total amount received earlier. In our view, the issue of credit notes is therefore only an accounting transaction to recognize the liability of the appellant towards their customer to know the excess payment lying with them. It has to be kept in mind that BIS is set by the Government of India with the Governing Council and Members consisting of Ministers and Members of Parliament and Secretaries of concerned Departments. There is also no allegation tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 lays down that certain marks cannot be registered as a trademark. The Hallmark only signifies that the products which are hallmarked are in conformity to the standards under the Hallmarking Scheme. Unauthorised use of Hallmark is punishable under BIS Act, 1986. This Act is not for any Intellectual Property Right. This is for quality assurance. We note that the lower authorities did not categorically record as to how Hallmark is an Intellectual Property Right of appellant. The appellant categorically state that they do not possess any such Intellectual Property Right. The Hallmark is worldwide recognised quality mark and not an Intellectual Property Right of appellant. BIS Act is for consumer protection, not dealing with Intellectu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|