Franchisee granted stay in service tax dispute with major issues ruled in their favor.

The Tribunal granted stay without pre-deposit to the applicant, a franchisee of BCCI, in a service tax dispute. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant on major issues, including revenue share, payments to foreign players and support staff, sale of space for advertisement, and excess Cenvat credit. It held that the joint business arrangement with BCCI did not constitute a service, waiving the balance dues for appeal admission and allowing stay on collection of balance dues during the appeal's pendency.

---

---

Issues:
Stay petitions in two appeals arising from the same impugned order regarding service tax disputes on revenue share, payments to foreign players and support staff, sale of space, and excess Cenvat credit.

Analysis:
1. The applicant, a franchisee of BCCI for organizing IPL matches, disputes service tax on various amounts received and paid. The major dispute concerns revenue share from BCCI, with the applicant arguing it's not a service but a joint business arrangement with shared resources and risks. The Tribunal agrees, citing precedents, and grants stay without pre-deposit on this issue.

2. Regarding payments to foreign players and support staff, the demand is under reverse charge, with service tax paid on support staff but not on players. The applicant argues the player payments are for playing matches, akin to employer-employee relationship. No service tax liability is found on this issue.

3. The sale of space for advertisement is contested, with the applicant claiming it's sponsorship, not sale of space. The change in tax law is highlighted, but the Tribunal finds no tax liability on this issue.

4. Excess Cenvat credit demand is linked to input tax credit on franchise services, with a dispute over the value of exempted services like ticket sales. The applicant argues ticket sales are not a service but subject to state entertainment tax. The Tribunal agrees, finding no need to reverse credit for exempted services.

5. The Revenue argues for taxability on all issues, emphasizing the business support provided by the applicant to BCCI. However, the Tribunal finds in favor of the applicant on major issues, granting stay without further pre-deposit and waiving the balance dues for appeal admission.

6. The judgment concludes that the applicant's joint business arrangement with BCCI does not constitute a service, and the pre-deposit made is sufficient for appeal admission. Stay on collection of balance dues is granted during the appeal's pendency, and the stay applications are allowed.

This comprehensive analysis covers the key legal issues and arguments presented in the judgment, detailing the Tribunal's findings and decisions on each disputed matter.

---