TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that:- activity undertaken by the applicants cannot be covered under the restricted definition of 'Franchise Service'. Further, the issue is debatable and interpretation of law under which category the activity undertaken by the applicants shall be covered and from whom the Service Tax is to be recovered is also in jeopardy. Waiver of pre-deposit of entire demand of Service Tax, interest and various penalties granted. - ST/106/2010 - S/423/2011/CSTB/C-I/WZB./MUM./2011 - Dated:- 26-9-2011 - ASHOK JINDAL, P.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, JJ. ORDER Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member - The applicants are seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 13,14,63,643/- under the category of 'Franchise Service' and Rs. 16,869/- under the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the category of 'Franchise Service' and a small demand under the category of 'Management Consultant Service'. The show-cause notice was contested by the applicants but finally the demands of Service Tax were confirmed under both the categories along with interest and various penalties mentioned herein above. 3. Shri Rohan Shah, learned Advocate for the applicants appeared and submitted that on the same activity of the applicants for the subsequent period, in the applicants own case, the Commissioner has dropped the demand holding that the activity undertaken by the applicants does not fall under the 'Franchise Service'. He further submitted that prior to 16.6.2005, 'Franchise Service' was having the restricted definition but on 16. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts of this case, as for both the periods there were different agreements and arrangements between the applicants and CBUs, therefore, the said decision cannot be relied upon. He further submitted that since the activity of the applicants is appropriately covered under 'Franchise Service' during the impugned period, the adjudicating authority has rightly confirmed the demands against the applicants. Further, the applicants have also suppressed their activity from the department, therefore, the extended period of limitation is also invokable. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Considering the submissions made by both sides, we find that for both the periods the agreements for arrangement made by them were different but the activities undertaken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
