https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756315 CESTAT Ahmedabad held that advertisement charges collected by appellant as reimbursement from franchisees cannot be included in gross value of franchise service for service tax purposes. The tribunal found that Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, which formed the basis of revenue's case, was unconstitutional and ultra vires sections 66 and 67 of Finance Act, 1994. Since advertisement expenses were ultimately borne by franchisees as their business expenses and appellant merely acted as intermediary making payments to agencies and collecting reimbursements, these amounts did not form part of franchise service value. The Commissioner (Appeals) order favoring revenue was set aside and appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 30 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Aug 2024 08:31:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756315 CESTAT Ahmedabad held that advertisement charges collected by appellant as reimbursement from franchisees cannot be included in gross value of franchise service for service tax purposes. The tribunal found that Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, which formed the basis of revenue's case, was unconstitutional and ultra vires sections 66 and 67 of Finance Act, 1994. Since advertisement expenses were ultimately borne by franchisees as their business expenses and appellant merely acted as intermediary making payments to agencies and collecting reimbursements, these amounts did not form part of franchise service value. The Commissioner (Appeals) order favoring revenue was set aside and appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 30 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756315