https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241404 The appeal was dismissed, upholding the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,13,13,784/-, including interest and penalty. The adjudication order confirmed the liability under the reverse charge mechanism for Business Auxiliary Service provided by the overseas company to promote diamond jewelry. The Tribunal rejected arguments for waiver or stay of recovery, directing the petitioner to make the deposit within eight weeks. The judgment emphasized the obligation to remit service tax for marketing and promotional activities related to diamond jewelry under the agreement. en-us Tue, 14 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:06:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241404 The appeal was dismissed, upholding the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,13,13,784/-, including interest and penalty. The adjudication order confirmed the liability under the reverse charge mechanism for Business Auxiliary Service provided by the overseas company to promote diamond jewelry. The Tribunal rejected arguments for waiver or stay of recovery, directing the petitioner to make the deposit within eight weeks. The judgment emphasized the obligation to remit service tax for marketing and promotional activities related to diamond jewelry under the agreement. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 14 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241404