Appeal allowed, order set aside, costs imposed on authority. Payment to PM National Relief Fund.

The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and costs of Rs. 25,000/- were imposed on the adjudicating authority, payable to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within four weeks.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Travelling Expenses
2. Advertising and Marketing Expenses
3. Marketing Support
4. Income from Lease of Property
5. Income from Lease of Vehicles
6. Service Provided
7. Invocation of Extended Period
8. Best Judgement Assessment

Detailed Analysis:

1. Travelling Expenses:
The appellants contended that the travelling expenses represented the foreign travel expenses of their employees reimbursed to them and were not in relation to any taxable service. The adjudicating authority's "analysis" was a mere verbatim reproduction of the appellants' submission without any finding about the taxability. Despite noting that these expenses were on foreign trips of employees, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand without mentioning the taxable service, which was found to be unsustainable as no evidence linked the expenses to any taxable service.

2. Advertising and Marketing Expenses:
The appellants argued that they had paid the service tax under the reverse charge mechanism for advertising and marketing expenses incurred abroad. The adjudicating authority's findings were largely verbatim reproductions of the appellants' submissions and legal provisions, lacking any genuine analysis. The appellants demonstrated that the reverse charge mechanism was not applicable before 18.04.2006 and that they had already paid the required service tax along with interest for the period 2006-07 to 2011-12. The adjudicating authority failed to provide evidence to the contrary, making the additional demand unsustainable.

3. Marketing Support:
The appellants explained that the marketing support expenses were actually reimbursements to bottlers for marketing activities, which were expenses in their hands, not income. The adjudicating authority failed to analyze these submissions and incorrectly treated the amounts as income. The appellants showed that these were expenses recorded in their profit and loss account, not services rendered by them, thus no service tax was applicable.

4. Income from Lease of Property:
The appellants clarified that the amount was an expense for leasing warehouse premises, not income. The adjudicating authority merely reproduced legal definitions without any analysis or findings, failing to counter the appellants' evidence. The appellants demonstrated that they were the recipients of the leasing service, not liable to pay service tax.

5. Income from Lease of Vehicles:
The appellants stated that the lease payments for vehicles were expenses, not income. The adjudicating authority did not address these submissions or provide any findings. The appellants, being the recipients of the leasing service, were not liable for service tax.

6. Service Provided:
The appellants argued that the services provided to International Auditors Inc., USA, were export services, and thus not taxable. They also paid service tax for services rendered to HCCBPL in India. The adjudicating authority did not address these contentions or provide relevant findings, making the demand unsustainable.

7. Invocation of Extended Period:
The adjudicating authority's reasoning for invoking the extended period was cryptic and inadequate. The Supreme Court's ruling in Collector of Customs & Excise vs. HMM Ltd. requires specific averments and findings, which were missing in this case, making the invocation of the extended period unsustainable.

8. Best Judgement Assessment:
The adjudicating authority quoted Section 72 but did not provide any methodology or reasoning for the best judgement figures. The assessment appeared arbitrary, lacking the required quasi-judicial process and opportunity for the appellants to be heard, rendering it unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The impugned order was found to be non-speaking, arbitrary, and displaying non-application of mind. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and costs of Rs. 25,000/- were imposed on the adjudicating authority, payable to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within four weeks.

---