Intellectual property service, not franchise service, applies to a mere licence to use IP without representational rights.

A licence arrangement for temporary use of intellectual property rights is classifiable as intellectual property service, not franchise service, where the recipient does not obtain a representational right to act as the licensor or lose its own identity. Limited quality supervision and control by the licensor do not, by themselves, create a franchise. Once the service falls within intellectual property service, the abatement notification for a holder of intellectual property rights applies to the extent prescribed under the Research and Development Cess framework. On that basis, the note states that service tax demand and related penalties founded on franchise classification cannot be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the services received under the agreements were classifiable as franchise service or as intellectual property service; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to the abatement notification available to a holder of intellectual property rights.

Issue (i): Whether the services received under the agreements were classifiable as franchise service or as intellectual property service.

Analysis: The definition of franchise required a representational right to sell or manufacture goods, provide services, or undertake a process identified with the franchisor. The agreements were examined and found to be licence arrangements for temporary use of intellectual property rights, with the licensors retaining title and the assessee not losing its own identity or representing the licensors to the outside world. The licensors' quality supervision and limited control did not amount to significant control characteristic of a franchise. On the other hand, the agreements squarely answered to the statutory concept of intellectual property service involving temporary transfer or permission to use intellectual property rights.

Conclusion: The services were classifiable as intellectual property service and not as franchise service, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to the abatement notification available to a holder of intellectual property rights.

Analysis: The notification exempted the taxable service provided by a holder of intellectual property right in relation to intellectual property service to the extent of cess paid under the Research and Development Cess Act, 1986. Since the service was held to be intellectual property service, the benefit of the notification followed. The findings on franchise classification removed the basis for denying the exemption.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the abatement benefit, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand of service tax and the penalties founded on franchise classification could not be sustained, and the assessee succeeded in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: An agreement is taxable as franchise service only when the recipient is granted a representational right to act as the franchisor, whereas a mere licence to use intellectual property for manufacture and sale of products remains intellectual property service.

---