https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449756 CESTAT Allahabad held that a Race Promotion Contract between parties did not qualify as a taxable franchise service under Section 65(105)(zze) of Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal found that franchise service requires grant of representational right where franchisee loses individual identity and represents franchisor. Since this essential element was absent, the service tax demand of Rs.20,36,32,619/- was unsustainable. Additionally, extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked as revenue had complete knowledge of facts. Penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were also set aside. Appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 13 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449756 CESTAT Allahabad held that a Race Promotion Contract between parties did not qualify as a taxable franchise service under Section 65(105)(zze) of Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal found that franchise service requires grant of representational right where franchisee loses individual identity and represents franchisor. Since this essential element was absent, the service tax demand of Rs.20,36,32,619/- was unsustainable. Additionally, extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked as revenue had complete knowledge of facts. Penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were also set aside. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 13 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449756