Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The CESTAT held that the advertisement charges collected by the appellant as reimbursement expense cannot be included in the gross value of franchise service. The revenue's case was based on Rule 5(1) and 5(2) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, which were held unconstitutional and ultra vires the Finance Act, 1994. The advertisement expenses were ultimately borne by the franchisees as part of their business expenses and cannot be included in the gross value of franchise service. Consequently, the impugned order allowing the revenue's appeal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
