2009 (8) TMI 414

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellant. ORDER D.N. Panda, Judicial Member - None present for the respondent. 2. Revenue being aggrieved by the order dated 18-4-2007 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who held that the service tax of Rs. 1,57,399 was only payable on royalty (Ref: Para 6 of Appeal order) and tax of Rs. 45,000 on the franchise fees is not leviable and penalty not imposable has preferred this appeal bef .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat franchise fees collected during the period prior to levy of service tax on franchise fees shall not be taxed. We are in full agreement with the said proposition. But para 5 does not disclose the evidence that has been relied upon by the Commissioner for such proposition except the submission of the respondent which received his consideration. If documentary evidence is examined thoroughly, law .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dent deserves to be heard again when documentary proof does not come out in paragraph 6 of the impugned order. 6. There is also dispute regarding service tax of Rs. 820 appearing in para 7 of the order. Learned Commissioner has found that the application fees shall not be equated with franchise fees. We agree with the learned Commissioner on this proposition. Therefore, revenue does not succeed o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X