https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778975 CESTAT CHENNAI - AT dismissed the appeal, holding the mutual obligation fee paid under a share-purchase arrangement is not an "input service" under Rule 2(l) CCR, 2004 nor covered as "sales promotion." The Tribunal found the payment related to contractual non-solicitation and investment/protection obligations, not services used in or relating to manufacture or clearance of final products. Payment of service tax or classification under Finance Act provisions does not automatically convert a service into an input service. The adjudicating authority's order was affirmed and the appeal rejected. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:26:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778975 CESTAT CHENNAI - AT dismissed the appeal, holding the mutual obligation fee paid under a share-purchase arrangement is not an "input service" under Rule 2(l) CCR, 2004 nor covered as "sales promotion." The Tribunal found the payment related to contractual non-solicitation and investment/protection obligations, not services used in or relating to manufacture or clearance of final products. Payment of service tax or classification under Finance Act provisions does not automatically convert a service into an input service. The adjudicating authority's order was affirmed and the appeal rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778975