https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390060 The tribunal held that the VSAT fee charged for the supply of equipment did not fall under "franchise service" for service tax purposes as the agreements did not grant representational rights or involve payment of a franchise fee. The tribunal also found that the department's invocation of the extended period of limitation was unjustified as facts were on record and a previous notice had been issued for the same period. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the order, ruling in favor of the appellant on both limitation and merits. en-us Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Nov 2020 16:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390060 The tribunal held that the VSAT fee charged for the supply of equipment did not fall under "franchise service" for service tax purposes as the agreements did not grant representational rights or involve payment of a franchise fee. The tribunal also found that the department's invocation of the extended period of limitation was unjustified as facts were on record and a previous notice had been issued for the same period. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the order, ruling in favor of the appellant on both limitation and merits. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390060