2008 (9) TMI 82

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....akes a preliminary objection that Section 86(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 has been amended w.e.f. 11.05.2007 under which only a Committee of Commissioners can authorize filing Appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). He states that in this case, the Appeal has been filled on 14.05.2007 on the basis of an authorization by the jurisdictional Commissioner and hence the Appeal is not maintainable. On examination of the records we find that the impugned Order-in-Appeal was passed on 14.02.2007, the same was dispatched on 19.02.2007 and received on 28.02.2007. The authorization to file Appeal against the same has been signed by the jurisdictional Commissioner on 10.04.2007. The Appeal papers including the verification clauses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....65 (47) of the Finance Act has undergone change and in the revised definition of 'franchise' the provisions regarding payment of fees etc. has been done away with. Hence he states that the earlier decision of the Tribunal requires to be re-considered in the light of the changed provisions for the subsequent period. 4. We have heard both sides in respect of changed definition of 'franchise' under the Service Tax Law. We find that as held by us earlier in the cited Order dated 02.11.2007, the Respondents are promoting and marketing services provided by the ICICI Bank and they are receiving payment for such services. As held earlier, M/s. ICICI Bank, the franchiser, is not receiving any amount from the Respondents for granting them the fran....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the actual services rendered by the Respondents, their services are nothing but 'business auxiliary service' not only for the period prior to 16.06.2005 as held by us earlier in our cited Order dated 02.11.2007, but even for the subsequent period after that date. 5. Shri Acharya, learned Advocate has also cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Malabar Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.S.T. Chennai- 2008 (84) RLT 788 (CESTAT-Che.) = 2008 (9) S.T.R. 483 (Tri-Chennai) to claim deductions from gross receipts in regard to expenses incurred by the Respondents. We find that the Respondents are being paid from M/s. ICICI Bank for the services rendered by the Respondents. Since the base for calculating the Service Tax is the gross r....