COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX Vs. SHRIYA SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to filing of this appeal by Revenue are, in brief, as under.

(2.) SHRI Amresh Jain, the learned DR, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal in the Revenue's appeal and pleaded that the respondent had involved herself in advertisement campaigns for promotion of various products or services of her clients, that from the respondent's agreements with M/s. Idea Cellular and M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., it is clear that she had provided the services relating to promotion of their services and products through advertisement campaign, that from the respondent's agreements with M/s. Khazana Jewellers and M/s. Saravana Jewellers, it is clear that she had provided service relating to promotion of the jewellery through advertisement campaigns, that similarly the respondent had promoted the marketing of Lux soap for M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Tea for M/s. Brook Bond Tea, Eva Talcom Powder for M/s. TTK Healthcare Products etc., that the activity of marketing or promotion of goods manufactured by a client or promotion or marketing of service provided by a client is covered by the definition of 'Business Auxiliary Service', as given in Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 which is taxable under Section 65(105)(zzb) ibid since 1 -7 -2003, that actual sale of goods or services in course of provision of Business Auxiliary Service is not an essential condition as the word - "or" is used disjunctively between the words - 'promotion' or 'marketing' or 'sale', that the activity of the respondent in pursuance of her contracts with her clients namely M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., M/s. TTK Healthcare Ltd., M/s. Khazana Jewellers, M/s. Saravana Jewellers, M/s. Bhima Jewellers, M/s. Procter & Gamble Ltd., M/s. Idea Cellular, M/s. Zydus Wellness Ltd., M/s. United Biscuits Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Elder Pharmaceuticals, M/s. Reymond Weil India Pvt. Ltd. etc. cannot be said to be a brand promotion, but is the activity of promotion of the goods manufactured by her clients or services provided by her clients which is covered by the definition of Business Auxiliary Service. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records.