TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y much in existence and prima facie is not satisfied. Consequently, in view of precedent CESTAT judgement in the case Saanj and Savera Educational Welfare Trust vs. C.S.T., Delhi [2015 (10) TMI 1053 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], appellant has made out a strong case for full waiver of pre-deposit - stay granted. - Stay Application No.55237 of 2014 in Service Tax Appeal No.54594 of 2014 - Stay Order No. 50700/2016 - Dated:- 6-6-2016 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Judicial Member and Mr. R.K. Singh, Technical Member Present Shri Varun Gaba, Advocate for the appellant Present Shri Amresh Jain, A.R for the Respondent/Revenue ORDER Stay application along with appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 24.6.2014, in terms of wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 evident from the forgoing the only issue involved in this case is whether condition No. iv of the definition of franchise given in Section 65(47) of Finance Act, 1994 was satisfied in terms of the franchise agreement entered into by the appellant. We fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son and his client is a franchise agreement within the meaning of this term, as defined under Section 65(47) of the Finance Act, 1994, would be on the Revenue. 6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the appeal to the extent that no service tax is leviable under franchise service prior to 16.6.2005 and consequently the demand, interest and penalty relating to the period prior to 16.6.2005 are set aside. 6. As is seen the demand pertains to the period 1.4.2004 to 15.6.2005 when condition No.IV in the definition of franchise given in Section 65(47) ibid was very much in existence and prima facie is not satisfied. Consequently, in view of precedent CESTAT judgement in the case Saanj and Savera Educational Welfare Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
