Advertisement charges collected as reimbursement from franchisees cannot be included in franchise service value for service tax under Rule 5(1)

CESTAT Ahmedabad held that advertisement charges collected by appellant as reimbursement from franchisees cannot be included in gross value of franchise service for service tax purposes. The tribunal found that Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, which formed the basis of revenue's case, was unconstitutional and ultra vires sections 66 and 67 of Finance Act, 1994. Since advertisement expenses were ultimately borne by franchisees as their business expenses and appellant merely acted as intermediary making payments to agencies and collecting reimbursements, these amounts did not form part of franchise service value. The Commissioner (Appeals) order favoring revenue was set aside and appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of advertisement charges in the gross value of franchise service.
2. Applicability and constitutionality of Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.
3. Determination of whether the appellant acted as a "pure agent."

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of Advertisement Charges in the Gross Value of Franchise Service:
The core issue revolves around whether the advertisement charges collected by the appellant from their franchisees should be included in the gross value of the franchise service. The appellant argued that these charges were merely reimbursements for expenses paid to advertising agencies and should not be included in the taxable value of the franchise service. The adjudicating authority initially ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the advertisement charges were not part of the gross value of the franchise service. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision, interpreting Rule 5(1) to include these charges in the gross value.

2. Applicability and Constitutionality of Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006:
The appellant's primary argument against the inclusion of advertisement charges was based on the unconstitutionality of Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The appellant cited the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt Ltd, which declared Rule 5(1) as ultra vires to Sections 66 and 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, stating that since Rule 5(1) was deemed unconstitutional, the entire basis for the Revenue's demand was invalid. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relying on Rule 5(1) was not sustainable.

3. Determination of Whether the Appellant Acted as a "Pure Agent":
The appellant contended that they acted as a "pure agent" in collecting advertisement charges from the franchisees and paying them to the advertising agencies. According to the appellant, this arrangement was a cost-sharing model beneficial to both parties. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this argument, stating that the appellant's actions violated Clauses (c) and (d) of Rule 5(1) and that the appellant did not meet the criteria for being a "pure agent." However, the Tribunal found that the advertisement expenses were ultimately borne by the franchisees and were part of their business expenses. Therefore, these expenses should not be included in the gross value of the franchise service.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the entire case of the Revenue was based on the now-unconstitutional Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. Even without considering Rule 5, the Tribunal held that the advertisement expenses, being ultimately borne by the franchisees, should not be included in the gross value of the franchise service. The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's original decision and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), allowing the appellant's appeal with consequential relief.

---