https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236456 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the activity did not constitute 'franchise services' as there were no representational rights granted to sub-licensees. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal. The Tribunal did not address the valuation method used for the transaction with Nath Seeds Ltd. Additionally, the Tribunal did not apply the longer limitation period for the demand from April 2004 to September 2007, considering the Revenue's initial classification of services and the timing of the Show Cause Notice. en-us Wed, 03 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236456 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the activity did not constitute 'franchise services' as there were no representational rights granted to sub-licensees. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal. The Tribunal did not address the valuation method used for the transaction with Nath Seeds Ltd. Additionally, the Tribunal did not apply the longer limitation period for the demand from April 2004 to September 2007, considering the Revenue's initial classification of services and the timing of the Show Cause Notice. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 03 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236456