https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352119 The Tribunal upheld the original orders dropping the demand for service tax under the Business Auxiliary Service category against the respondent. It found that the respondent was not promoting or marketing clients' services, thus not meeting the criteria for tax liability under Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal agreed with the respondent's argument that they acted on a principal to principal basis and did not promote any person's business. Previous decisions were cited to support the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals, emphasizing that considerations received in relation to cargo shipment arrangements were not taxable under BAS. en-us Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Dec 2017 09:16:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352119 The Tribunal upheld the original orders dropping the demand for service tax under the Business Auxiliary Service category against the respondent. It found that the respondent was not promoting or marketing clients' services, thus not meeting the criteria for tax liability under Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal agreed with the respondent's argument that they acted on a principal to principal basis and did not promote any person's business. Previous decisions were cited to support the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals, emphasizing that considerations received in relation to cargo shipment arrangements were not taxable under BAS. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352119