PAKISTAN BEVERAGE LTD., KARACHI versus DCIR-09 AUDIT DIVISION-II, LTU
Section 3, 2 (12A), 8, 14 and 19 (1) of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005, R 43A of the Federal Excise General Order No. 5, 2006 5 of the duties set forth in the 2006 First Schedule, to apply to the franchise Taxpayers argued the fees or royalties paid to the principal for the use of foreign brand names suggest that under the new arrangement, he would not be required to pay a vote / royalty. And the term of the franchise expressly states that an agreement can only be identified as a franchise agreement when in this case the franchisee is required to sell or manufacture the goods or provide the services or perform any operation. , Which has the express right to do any work with the franchisor against a unanimous fee or consideration. There was no royalty and any such agreement between the principal and the taxpayers. There was no question of any franchise fee or royalty payment. In addition to paying the franchise fee / royalty payment from the principal in the United States, after the tripartite agreement, the principal stopped paying royalty / franchise fee, while the tax paying company was tax free. Continuing to sue the brand name and good will associated with the revenue working in the area became the principal raw material supplier to all manufacturers operating in Pakistan if the contract, which had not been submitted before the appellate tribunal Was. At that time it was believed that the taxpayer was using the brand name without interruption or mutual agreement but was bound to buy attention from a local manufacturer who was deployed in the United States.
