9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n their business does not arise. In these circumstances, prima facie we are of the view that the activity undertaken by the applicant does not qualify under the category of Business Auxiliary Service - All the activities referred by the Hon'ble High Court [2013 (1) TMI 304 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] with regard the promotion of sale but here the applicant is providing all services after effecting the sale. Therefore, the said case law is not relevant to the facts of this case. In these circumstances, the applicant has made out a prima facie case of complete waiver of pre-deposit of service tax, interest and penalties, therefore, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of entire amount of service tax, interest and penalty and stay recovery there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xiliary Service. In these set of facts, proceedings were initiated against the applicant by issuing a Show Cause Notice. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated and the demand of service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service was confirmed along with interest penalties also imposed. Another-demand of service tax of ₹ 1,09,755/- has been confirmed on account of difference between the ST-3 and Balance Sheet of the applicant, on this the applicant paid service tax. Therefore, that is not the issue before us for consideration today for stay of the impugned order wherein the applicant has got service tax after availing the abatement. 3. The ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not promoting any busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contests, demonstrations, discounts, exhibitions or tradeshows, games, giveaways, point-of-sale displays and merchandising, special offers, and similar activities. The Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, third edition, describes the term sales promotion as use of incentives to get people to buy a product or a sales drive. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mohd. Ishaque Gulam, 232 ITR 869, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court drew a distinction between the expenditure made for sales promotion and commission paid to agents. It was held that commission paid to the agents cannot be termed as expenditure on sales promotion. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. Prima facie, the issue is to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
