https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450623 Consideration for a non-compete agreement was held not taxable under Business Auxiliary Service because liability in a taxing statute cannot rest on presumption and the notice failed to identify the exact statutory sub-clause or direct promotion activity. Full utilisation of common CENVAT credit was also upheld for services covered by Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, since the general restriction under Rule 6(3) does not override the specific credit entitlement unless the services are used exclusively for exempted supplies. The tax, interest and penalty demands were set aside. en-us Wed, 28 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Mar 2024 07:36:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450623 Consideration for a non-compete agreement was held not taxable under Business Auxiliary Service because liability in a taxing statute cannot rest on presumption and the notice failed to identify the exact statutory sub-clause or direct promotion activity. Full utilisation of common CENVAT credit was also upheld for services covered by Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, since the general restriction under Rule 6(3) does not override the specific credit entitlement unless the services are used exclusively for exempted supplies. The tax, interest and penalty demands were set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 28 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450623