2009 (4) TMI 780

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. Shri L.B. Yadav, ld. SDR appearing for the department states that at the material time the expression franchise was defined to mean 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e the assessees have met all these four criteria as brought out in the show-cause notice and also in the original order. However, the lower appellate authority has held erroneously that the Respondents have not satisfied Sr. No. (ii) above without examining the facts of the case. 3. Heard Shri R. Santhanam, ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent also states that all the four elements under def .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e lower appellate authority has referred to the arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondents he has given no finding as to whether the Respondent have satisfied criterion No. (ii) under the definition of franchisee. In the order portion, he has merely recorded the opinion that respondents have satisfied this condition without examining the facts of the case. As such, with the consent of bo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X