2018 (8) TMI 1172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er 2004 to December 2006 and January 2007 to December 2007 respectively. No infirmity is then found in the inclusion of Lower appellate authority in para 5.1 of the impugned order that transfer of knowhow is not a onetime affair for which royalty charges are being paid even during the disputed period. Assessee are liable to pay service tax, with interest thereon, on the Royalty charges paid, only w.e.f. 18.04.2006, i.e. after enactment of Section 66A of the Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M. Kannan, Advocate For the Assessee Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) For the Revenue ORDER Per Bench Both the appeals are arising out of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t confirmation of demand is in Appeal ST/517/2011. Revenue being aggrieved on non-confirmation of demand of service tax from 1.1.2005 and non-imposition of penalties under Section 76 & 78 of the Act, has filed Appeal No.ST/513/2011. 2. Ld. counsel Shri M. Kannan appearing on behalf of the assessee made the following submissions: i) The payment was made in terms of the agreement dated 1.2.1995 and there cannot be any tax liability for the services rendered prior to 10.09.2004. Liability to service tax will arise only with reference to payments made during September 2004 to December 2007 where such payments relate to transfer of right to use IPR on or after 10.09.2004, the date on which service tax levy came into force on IPR service. Hence .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee is aggrieved by the decision of the lower appellate authority upholding the demand of service tax under IPR service, albeit only from 18-04-2006. Their main contention in appeal is that payment having been made in terms of agreement dated 1-2-1995, service tax liability cannot be foisted on them, since IPR service became taxable only w.e.f. 10.09.2004. However, we note that the said Agreement required the assessee to pay royalty annually to their foreign service provider, based at 1.3% of ceramic refractory fibre sales. As per the two related show cause notices dated 11.8.2008 and 02.02.2009 such payments have been made from September 2004 to December 2006 and January 2007 to December 2007 respectively. No infirmity is then found in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X