9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the definition of franchisee for Service Tax liability. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the interpretation of the definition of franchisee for determining Service Tax liability. The Appellate Tribunal considered the four criteria outlined in the definition of franchisee at the material time. The department argued that all four elements must be satisfied to bring the assessee under Service Tax for franchisee service. The department contended that the assessees had met all four criteria, as indicated in the show-cause notice and the original order. However, the lower appellate authority erroneously held that the Respondents did not satisfy the second criterion without examining the facts of the case. The Respondent's representative argued that all four elements under the definition of franchisee were fully satisfied. He highlighted how the Respondents had met the criteria at the second point. Additionally, it was mentioned that the Respondents were providing the service of intellectual property rights, which became subject to Service Tax from a specific date. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal concluded that for the earlier period, it needed to be determined whether the services fell under the category of franchisee services as defined at that time under the law. The Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority had not provided a finding on whether the Respondents had satisfied criterion number two under the definition of franchisee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the lower appellate authority for a detailed examination based on the arguments presented by both sides. The lower appellate authority was directed to pass a reasoned order after providing a fair opportunity for both parties to be heard. The department's appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the cross-objection filed by the Respondent was also disposed of accordingly.
|
