2016 (1) TMI 597

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appeal No. ST/974/2011 has been filed against order in appeal dated 22.03.2011 which upheld the order-in-original dated 31.03.2008 in terms of which service tax demand of Rs. 58105/- was confirmed alongwith interest, and penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 and Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1944 was imposed. 2. The appellant has contended that  (i) The benefit of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llected and not paid). The appellant entered into an agreement with Tata Teleservices and it is clear from the perusal of the said agreement that the appellant was inter-alia to promote the business interest of Tata Teleservices. Although, this agreement is called "franchisee" agreement, the activities undertaken would fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. The appellant was provid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he targets, it is; not excludible from the assessable value of the service which as per Section 67 is the gross amount received for the service rendered and it cannot be sustainably argued that such incentive would not constitute part of the gross amount recovered as the incentive was with regard to achieving the target for rendering BAS only. The judgment in the case of CST, Mumbai-I vs. Sai Serv....