TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1823
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The brief facts are M/s. Dell India Private Ltd, the Appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of computers, computer part components and computer software to its customers located in India. Appellant's products are embedded with components/software of other market players, benefits of promotion/advertisement of the Appellant's products directly or indirectly accrue to other market players as well. Sometimes, such other market players provide reimbursement for such marketing expenditures, at their discretion. The Appellant generally uses 'Intel' processors in their computers. Consequently, Intel Semiconductor Ltd., USA, vide their 'INTEL INSIDE PROGRAM' offers reimbursement of expenses to the ext....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove, it is evident that it is not a contract that can be considered as falling under 'Business Auxiliary Service.' Learned Counsel further submits that Section 65 (105)(zzb) only covers promotion of goods/services. 'Brand promotion' is a distinct service that was introduced in the tax net vide insertion of the Section 65 (105)(zzzzq) only with effect from 01.07.2010. This position in law has been settled vide decision of the Tribunal in the matter of M/s. Jetlite (India) Ltd., reported in 2010 (12) TMI 40 - CESTAT New Delhi and the Circular No. 334/1/2010 - TRU dated 26th February, 2010. Ld. counsel further submits that only based on the investigation launched against M/s. Datamini Technologies (India) Ltd, the proceedings against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upra). 5. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the finding in the impugned order and submits that the appellant is liable for payment of service tax as confirmed by Adjudication Authority. The Learned AR also submits that the finding in the matter of Jetlite (India) Ltd., (supra) as submitted by the Appellant are not relevant and draws our attention to the finding of the Tribunal, wherein it is held that :- "107. The above discussion inevitably leads to the conclusion that the adjudicating authority, for the reasons disclosed herein above, did travel beyond the scope of the show cause notice while deciding the matter. The activity for which the appellants were charged was undoubtedly relating to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt to the relevant period, it could not be said to have been part of Business Auxiliary Service during the relevant period and in any case the activity of Sahara Corporation being in the nature of sale of immovable properties either developed and/ or constructed or built premises therein did not amount to rendering "services" as such, either taxable or otherwise, to others, within the meaning the expression used in the category of Business Auxiliary Service under the said Act, the said activity by the appellants does not fall within the category of Business Auxiliary Service under the said Act, and hence there was no liability upon the appellants to pay any service tax for such activity by them during the relevant period under the category ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed from time-to-time. From the allegation levelled against the appellant in the show cause notice clearly implicit that the appellants are promoting the INTEL INSIDE brand and MICROSOFT technologies brand. 31. Tax under Section 65(105)(zzb) of Finance Act, 1994 is liable upon rendering of 'service provided or to be provided to a client by any person in relation to business auxiliary service' and Section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 defines the activity thus - 'Business Auxiliary Service' means any service in relation to, - (i) promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client; or (ii) promotion or marketing of service provided by the client; or ....