9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... franchisee service inasmuch as Media got the advertisement in the name of Swagat magazine which is clearly identified by the appellant and thus Media had representational right to collect advertisement for Swagat magazine which is identified with the appellant. Clearly the issue involved is interpretational and therefore the appellant s contention that there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression of fact on their part and they genuinely believed that the amount was not taxable has some merit and as a consequent prima facie extended period may not be invocable. - entire demand prior to 16.6.2005 is prima facie not sustainable, the extended period may also not be invocable and issue is interpretational, we grant stay against recovery subj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iding services/process identified with any other person and therefore demand up to the period is not sustainable. (ii) The issue is totally interpretational and therefore the extended period is not invokable. (iii) Even after, 16.6.2005, the term franchisee means an agreement by which the franchisee is granted representational right to sell or manufacture goods or to provide service or undertaken any process identified with franchisor, whether or not a trade mark, service mark, trade name or logo or any such symbol, as the case may be, is involved. Media was not granted any representational right to provide service or undertake any process identified with the appellant and therefore service tax under franchisee service is not chargeab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is identified with the appellant. Clearly the issue involved is interpretational and therefore the appellant s contention that there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression of fact on their part and they genuinely believed that the amount was not taxable has some merit and as a consequent prima facie extended period may not be invocable. The demand for the normal period works out to ₹ 20 lakhs (approx.). That this appeal is not governed by Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 as it stands with effect from 6.8.2014 is settled by Allahabad High Court in the case of Ganesh Yadav Vs. Union of India -2015-TIOL-1490-HC-ALL-ST. Further, the appellant has sought stay against recovery which is granted as per the inherent power of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
