Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, finding no Franchise or IP services provided. Orders set aside, appeals allowed.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that they did not provide Franchise or Intellectual Property Right services to the other party. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Revenue to demand Service Tax.
2. Classification of the service provided under "Intellectual Property Right" or "Franchise Service".
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in the Order-in-Original.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Revenue to demand Service Tax:
The appellant contested the jurisdiction of the Revenue, arguing that the payments were made to SKOL Breweries (Bangalore), which falls under a different Commissionerate. The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the Central Excise Registration and found no Service Tax Registration for the appellant at Aurangabad. It was also noted that there was no claim of double taxation for the same services in different jurisdictions. Thus, the question of jurisdiction was decided against the appellant.

2. Classification of the service provided under "Intellectual Property Right" or "Franchise Service":
The Revenue believed that the appellant provided taxable services under "Intellectual Property Right" and "Franchise Service". The appellant argued that FIPL was only a Contract Bottling Unit (CBU) manufacturing beer as per their specifications, and thus, no Franchise or IPR services were provided. The appellant referred to Circular F. NO. 249/1/2006-CX.4 and other relevant circulars, which clarified that in a contract manufacturing arrangement, the CBU provides manufacturing services, not Franchise or IPR services. The Tribunal noted that the agreement between the parties showed that FIPL was responsible for bottling, packing, and dispatch as per the appellant's specifications. The risk of manufacture and sale lay with the appellant, and FIPL was bound to charge the price fixed by the appellant. The definitions of "franchise" and "franchisor" were examined, and it was concluded that no Franchise or IPR services were provided by the appellant to FIPL.

3. Violation of principles of natural justice in the Order-in-Original:
The appellant claimed that the Order-in-Original violated the principles of natural justice. However, this issue was not elaborated upon in the judgment, and the primary focus was on the jurisdiction and classification of services.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the appellant did not provide Franchise or IPR services to FIPL. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in Court.

---