2015 (11) TMI 228

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vice tax and Rs. 36,942/- towards interest deposited by the appellant was appropriated. It is seen that the penalty imposed in this case was Rs. 3,17,983/- under Section 78 and this amount represented the difference between the total demand of Rs. 6,60,338/- confirmed and Rs. 3,42,355/- deposited and appropriated. The demand was confirmed under franchisee service. 2. The appellant has contended that: (i) it had entered into a franchise agreement with the franchisee in terms of which it gave right to use the name Shemrock to the franchisee for running a pre-preparatory/preparatory school. (ii) After the amendment to the definition of franchise with effect from 16.6.2005, it has paid service tax due along with interest wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the franchisee was under an obligation not to engage in selling or providing similar goods or services or process, identified with any other person and therefore service tax was leviable even prior to 16.6.2005. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. It is seen that there is no dispute about leviability of service tax under franchise service with effect from 16.6.2005 and that amount has already been paid along with interest and duly appropriated. Indeed we find that while imposing penalty under Section 78 ibid only the amount of service tax leviable for the period prior to 16.6.2005 has been taken into account and no penalty was levied in relation to the amount of service tax leviable with effect from on 16.6.2005. As is e....