https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772654 A franchise arrangement involving franchise services and supply of standard equipment required separate valuation of the equipment component under the statutory valuation framework. Where no separate amount was charged, the value had to be determined under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 3 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The order did not show any such valuation exercise and relied instead on general observations and external material. On that basis, the demand confirmation could not be sustained as passed, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on valuation of the equipment-supply service. en-us Fri, 09 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:21:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772654 A franchise arrangement involving franchise services and supply of standard equipment required separate valuation of the equipment component under the statutory valuation framework. Where no separate amount was charged, the value had to be determined under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 3 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The order did not show any such valuation exercise and relied instead on general observations and external material. On that basis, the demand confirmation could not be sustained as passed, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on valuation of the equipment-supply service. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 09 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772654