TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 748
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Bt. Technology (Cry 1Ac Cry 1AB) for transferring the technology to the sub-licensees. 2.2 The appellant in turn had given seven sub-licenses. Based on the agreement between the appellant and the sub-licensees where the terms and conditions of the license between all seven sub-licensees are same, and based on various statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 the Department issued Show Cause Notices alleging that the activities undertaken by them of giving franchise rights to sub-licensees is covered under 'franchise services'. There was a proposal for penalty also. On adjudication, the learned Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed various penalties. 2.3 Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k belonging to the appellant is put on the package. The package only contains a remark "Fusion BT' which denotes that the seeds being sold contain Fusion BT genes, which is neither a logo, nor a trademark or hallmark of the appellant. It only indicates the technology contained in the seeds under sale. 3.5 The contention is that the said product-package label clearly indicates that the seeds are manufactured and marketed in by the sub-licensees in their own name. There is no representation on the package either of the Appellant or the Licensor (owner of the technology). The label on the package show beyond reasonable doubt the sub-licensees do not claim to represent anybody but effect the production, sale, and marketing on their own name. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s experts to the customer's site for on-site training about the functioning of the said machine. The contention is that such training does not make the said manufacturer a franchisor. The key to qualify a transaction as franchise is granting representational right by the franchisor to franchisee which is absent in the present case. 3.10 As regards valuation, the contention is that the learned Commissioner has attributed the value to the transaction with Nath Seeds Ltd based on comparable transaction. The contention is that there is no such authority under the Finance Act, 1994 to use the comparable transaction value when the transaction is without any consideration. 3.11 On limitation the contention is that the Show Cause Notice is issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant falls under the category of 'Franchise Service'. The period involved in this case is from April 2004 to March 2009 and the definition of the service was amended with effect from 16.6.2005. In order to appreciate the matter in its proper perspective the relevant provisions of law before and after the amendment are reproduced hereunder for convenience of reference: Before 16.6.2005 'Section 65 (47) "franchise" means an agreement by which- (i) franchisee is granted representational right to sell or manufacture goods or to provide service or undertake any process identified with franchisor, whether or not a trade mark, service mark, trade name or logo or any such symbol, as the case may be, is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 Undisputedly, the appellants have imported the Technology which is owned by BTC and patented in China. The said technology is imported in the form of the mother seeds and the same are multiplied in the laboratory by or on behalf of the appellants and given to the sub-licensee to further multiply for onward sale by them to the farmers for the purpose of growing commercial crop. The appellants are not granted any 'representational right' from BTC to represent them in India, nor entitled to grant or they have actually granted any representational right to the sub-licensees. 5.4 The Revenue's case rests on the premise that the logo or hallmark belonging to the appellant is put on the seed package manufactured/marketed by the sub-licensees. T....