https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465249 CESTAT (LB) held that incentives described as "net incentive" and "support and other receipts" paid by Client-P to the appellant for advertising, promoting and marketing Pepsi-branded aerated beverages do not constitute "business auxiliary service" under s.65(19)(ii) of the Finance Act. BAS requires promotion or marketing of goods produced or provided by the client; here, the appellant advertises aerated water manufactured by itself, while Client-P produces only concentrates. The Bombay HC ruling in Coca Cola, concerning CENVAT credit on input services and the phrase "directly or indirectly," was held inapplicable. The earlier CESTAT ruling in favour of the appellant (SMV Beverages) was affirmed as not requiring reconsideration. The matter was remitted to the Division Bench to decide the appeal consistent with this view. en-us Fri, 07 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2025 15:23:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465249 CESTAT (LB) held that incentives described as "net incentive" and "support and other receipts" paid by Client-P to the appellant for advertising, promoting and marketing Pepsi-branded aerated beverages do not constitute "business auxiliary service" under s.65(19)(ii) of the Finance Act. BAS requires promotion or marketing of goods produced or provided by the client; here, the appellant advertises aerated water manufactured by itself, while Client-P produces only concentrates. The Bombay HC ruling in Coca Cola, concerning CENVAT credit on input services and the phrase "directly or indirectly," was held inapplicable. The earlier CESTAT ruling in favour of the appellant (SMV Beverages) was affirmed as not requiring reconsideration. The matter was remitted to the Division Bench to decide the appeal consistent with this view. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 07 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465249