Service tax interim relief on incentives, limitation, and exemption claims led to only partial pre-deposit being directed.

In a service tax interim-relief dispute, incentive received for use of software was treated as prima facie taxable as business auxiliary service, but the assessee's bona fide belief that no service was provided meant the extended limitation period was not available at the pre-deposit stage. Excess tax paid for an earlier period was accepted as sufficient adjustment for the short-payment component, supporting waiver of pre-deposit. Incentive received on achievement of targets was also treated as falling within Notification No. 22/97, creating a prima facie case for exemption and waiver. Overall, partial pre-deposit was directed only for the Amadeus-linked incentive, with the balance stayed on compliance.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the incentive received from M/s. Amadeus for use of software was prima facie liable to Service Tax as business auxiliary service and whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked; (ii) whether the demand for short payment of Service Tax could be sustained for the purpose of pre-deposit where excess tax had been paid for an earlier period and adjusted; (iii) whether the incentive received from service recipients on achievement of targets was covered by Notification No. 22/97.

Issue (i): Whether the incentive received from M/s. Amadeus for use of software was prima facie liable to Service Tax as business auxiliary service and whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.

Analysis: The incentive linked to use of the software was treated as promoting the business of M/s. Amadeus, and therefore prima facie fell within business auxiliary service. However, the applicant was using the software under a bona fide belief that no service was being provided to M/s. Amadeus. On that basis, the invocation of the extended period was held to be unavailable at the pre-deposit stage.

Conclusion: The demand was prima facie sustainable on merits, but the extended period of limitation was not invocable.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for short payment of Service Tax could be sustained for the purpose of pre-deposit where excess tax had been paid for an earlier period and adjusted.

Analysis: The earlier excess payment was accepted as sufficient to meet the requirement of pre-deposit for this component. The adjustment against the impugned period was treated as a relevant factor for interim relief.

Conclusion: Pre-deposit was waived for this component.

Issue (iii): Whether the incentive received from service recipients on achievement of targets was covered by Notification No. 22/97.

Analysis: The incentive receipts on achievement of targets were found to fall within the exemption claimed under Notification No. 22/97, making out a prima facie case for waiver at the interim stage.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit on this count.

Final Conclusion: Partial pre-deposit was directed only for the incentive received from M/s. Amadeus, while the remaining demand was stayed on compliance with the ordered deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: For interim relief in a service tax dispute, a bona fide belief against taxability can defeat invocation of the extended period at the pre-deposit stage, and prima facie exemption or prior excess payment may justify waiver of pre-deposit on the remaining components.

---