Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether incentive, advertisement and publicity amounts received from the brand owner were taxable as Business Auxiliary Service, and whether the demand of service tax, interest and penalties could survive.
Analysis: The appeal was held to be covered by earlier tribunal decisions on identical facts involving bottlers and franchisees receiving incentives or reimbursements from brand owners. It was found that the appellant manufactured and sold its own goods under the brand arrangement, and the amounts received were not for promotion or marketing of goods or services of the client within the taxable scope of Business Auxiliary Service. The activity was treated as participation in promotion of the brand name, which by itself did not satisfy the statutory definition relied upon by the department. Since the tax demand was unsustainable, the related interest and penalties also could not survive.
Conclusion: The service tax demand and consequential penalties were set aside and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere promotion of a brand name by a franchisee or bottler, without promotion or marketing of the client's goods or services and without a real service element, does not constitute Business Auxiliary Service.