Tribunal rules for appellants in tax dispute, dismissing service tax demands.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants-assessee in a tax dispute case involving various issues such as the taxability of Central Rights Income, service tax on payments to foreign players and service providers, costs incurred in marketing activities, and reversal of CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal set aside the service tax demands imposed by the Principal Commissioner, dismissing the Revenue's appeal due to lack of merit. The Tribunal's decision favored the appellants, leading to the disposal of both appeals and the cross-objection filed by the appellant-assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of Central Rights Income as Business Support Services (BSS).
2. Service tax applicability on payments to foreign players under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM).
3. Service tax on payments to foreign service providers for management consultancy services under RCM.
4. Taxability of costs incurred in marketing and PR activities outside India under BSS.
5. Reversal of common CENVAT Credit for taxable and exempt output services.
6. Taxability of 90% of payments to foreign players under RCM as BSS.
7. Taxability of 100% of payments to foreign coaches and support staff under RCM as BSS.

Summary:
1. Central Rights Income as BSS:
The Tribunal held that the Central Rights Income from BCCI cannot be considered as consideration for Business Support Services. It was determined that there is no contractor-contractee relationship in joint ventures, and thus, the demand of Rs.16,71,71,797/- was set aside.

2. Payments to Foreign Players under RCM:
The Tribunal found that the fees paid to foreign players are for playing cricket and not for promotional activities. Relying on the Sourav Ganguly case, the Tribunal held that the service tax demand of Rs.47,55,082/- on 10% of the fees and Rs.20,13,565/- to players' agents is not sustainable.

3. Management Consultancy Services under RCM:
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., ruling that reimbursable expenses cannot be included in the valuation of taxable services. Consequently, the service tax demand of Rs.38,31,865/- was set aside.

4. Marketing and PR Activities Outside India:
The Tribunal held that costs incurred for marketing and PR activities outside India are not taxable under BSS, following the precedent set in KPH Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. The demand of Rs.11,24,636/- was thus not sustainable.

5. Reversal of Common CENVAT Credit:
The Tribunal ruled that the reversal of common CENVAT Credit for stadium gate receipts, prize money, and in-stadia sales is not required. It was noted that prior to the amendment in 2016, there was no legal requirement to reverse CENVAT Credit for activities not considered services. The demand of Rs.2,13,57,472/- was set aside.

6. 90% Payments to Foreign Players under RCM:
The Tribunal upheld the Principal Commissioner's decision to drop the demand, stating that the primary activity of the players is playing cricket, and promotional activities are ancillary. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal.

7. 100% Payments to Foreign Coaches and Support Staff under RCM:
The Tribunal agreed with the Principal Commissioner that coaching services are distinct and not covered under BSS. As sports coaching is exempt, the service tax demand on these fees was not sustainable. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the demands confirmed by the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-IV, and allowed the appeal filed by the appellants-assessee. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly, and the cross-objection filed by the appellant-assessee was also disposed of.

---