https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352924 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, dismissing the Revenue's appeal against the dropping of service tax demand. The Commissioner determined that the service provided was not franchise service but a tangible goods service chargeable to service tax. The Tribunal emphasized that the license fee was primarily for the use of facilities and equipment, not for representational rights. Despite the argument regarding the use of the respondent's logo in the dealer agreement, the Tribunal found that the agreement focused on premises and equipment usage rather than granting representational rights to the dealers. en-us Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352924 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, dismissing the Revenue's appeal against the dropping of service tax demand. The Commissioner determined that the service provided was not franchise service but a tangible goods service chargeable to service tax. The Tribunal emphasized that the license fee was primarily for the use of facilities and equipment, not for representational rights. Despite the argument regarding the use of the respondent's logo in the dealer agreement, the Tribunal found that the agreement focused on premises and equipment usage rather than granting representational rights to the dealers. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352924