https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442512 The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not provide franchisee services as defined under the Finance Act, 1994. The agreements with distributors were primarily for marketing, promotion, and distribution, with no transfer of representational rights. The "Exclusivity Fee" was considered a deposit, not a franchise fee. Consequently, the demand for service tax and associated penalties were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442512 The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not provide franchisee services as defined under the Finance Act, 1994. The agreements with distributors were primarily for marketing, promotion, and distribution, with no transfer of representational rights. The "Exclusivity Fee" was considered a deposit, not a franchise fee. Consequently, the demand for service tax and associated penalties were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 29 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442512