https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758454 CESTAT Chandigarh ruled in favor of appellant engaged in multi-level sales promotion activities selling vouchers to corporate clients. The tribunal held that services were correctly classified under Tour Operator Service rather than Business Auxiliary Service, as corporate clients were manufacturers/traders, not tour operators themselves. Appellant provided services directly to customers without corporate client intervention. Extended limitation period was improperly invoked since appellant regularly filed returns declaring abatements, with no evidence of tax evasion intent. Interest and penalty were rejected as the underlying service tax demand was unsustainable. Appeal allowed. en-us Thu, 12 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:24:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758454 CESTAT Chandigarh ruled in favor of appellant engaged in multi-level sales promotion activities selling vouchers to corporate clients. The tribunal held that services were correctly classified under Tour Operator Service rather than Business Auxiliary Service, as corporate clients were manufacturers/traders, not tour operators themselves. Appellant provided services directly to customers without corporate client intervention. Extended limitation period was improperly invoked since appellant regularly filed returns declaring abatements, with no evidence of tax evasion intent. Interest and penalty were rejected as the underlying service tax demand was unsustainable. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 12 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758454