https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217551 The appellant's marketing of a training programme under a foreign brand and logo, under an agreement describing the foreign company as franchisor and the appellant as franchisee/master distributor, fell within the substituted definition of franchise because it granted representational rights to market services identified with the franchisor. The royalty paid to the foreign franchisor was treated as consideration for taxable franchise service. Because the service provider was located outside India and had no office or fixed establishment in India, service tax was payable by the appellant under reverse charge. The claim of prior tax payment was rejected for lack of documentary proof. en-us Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217551 The appellant's marketing of a training programme under a foreign brand and logo, under an agreement describing the foreign company as franchisor and the appellant as franchisee/master distributor, fell within the substituted definition of franchise because it granted representational rights to market services identified with the franchisor. The royalty paid to the foreign franchisor was treated as consideration for taxable franchise service. Because the service provider was located outside India and had no office or fixed establishment in India, service tax was payable by the appellant under reverse charge. The claim of prior tax payment was rejected for lack of documentary proof. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217551