https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783225 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the revenue-sharing MOU between the appellant and the advertising entity did not create a taxable "sale of space or time for advertisement service." The Tribunal found no service provider-service recipient relationship, as both parties jointly undertook responsibilities to maximize revenue for their mutual benefit, with consideration varying according to gross revenue and not being paid by one party to another for a specific service. Treating the arrangement as self-service, CESTAT held that the activity was not exigible to service tax and therefore no service tax liability arose. en-us Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2025 08:55:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783225 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the revenue-sharing MOU between the appellant and the advertising entity did not create a taxable "sale of space or time for advertisement service." The Tribunal found no service provider-service recipient relationship, as both parties jointly undertook responsibilities to maximize revenue for their mutual benefit, with consideration varying according to gross revenue and not being paid by one party to another for a specific service. Treating the arrangement as self-service, CESTAT held that the activity was not exigible to service tax and therefore no service tax liability arose. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783225