9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of royalty paid to the Japanese company for the service (Intellectual Property Right service) rendered by the latter during the period October, 2004 to March, 2005. However, no service tax was paid to the department by the appellant in respect of the amount of royalty paid by them to the foreign company in respect of the Intellectual Property Right service from 10-9-2004 to 30-9-2004 – held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia. The royalty for the above service provided by the Japanese Company was paid by the appellant in October, 2004 in respect of that part of the service which was received from 10-9-2004 to 30-9-2004. For the subsequent period up to March, 2005, royalty was paid in April, 2005. The appellant paid service tax on this amount of royalty paid to the Japanese company for the service (Intellectual Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. 2. The authorised representative of the appellant-company submits that service tax on any taxable service received by a person resident in India, from outside was not liable to be paid by him prior to 1-1-2005, the date on which Notification No. 36/2004-S.T. dated 31-12-2004 of the Central Government notifying the above taxable service (provided by a person who is a non-resident not havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/2004." 5. The above ruling is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case and accordingly it is held that the appellant qua recipient of Intellectual Property Right service from abroad during the period 10-9-2004 to 30-9-2004, having paid royalty for such service in the month of October, 2004, is not liable to pay service tax on such service inasmuch as the service was notified by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
