https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751251 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal, setting aside service tax demand under Business Auxiliary Service category. The tribunal held that appellant was not promoting or marketing client's services and received commission from manufacturer, not bank as alleged. Service tax on warranty commission was not liable under Business Auxiliary Service. Extended limitation period could not be invoked as department failed to prove intent to evade duty, with substantial demand being time-barred. Penalty was also set aside as the underlying demand was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 09 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751251 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal, setting aside service tax demand under Business Auxiliary Service category. The tribunal held that appellant was not promoting or marketing client's services and received commission from manufacturer, not bank as alleged. Service tax on warranty commission was not liable under Business Auxiliary Service. Extended limitation period could not be invoked as department failed to prove intent to evade duty, with substantial demand being time-barred. Penalty was also set aside as the underlying demand was unsustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 09 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751251