<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (12) TMI 146 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268842</link>
    <description>The Tribunal overturned the adjudication order confirming a demand of Rs. 5,76,80,000 for Sponsorship Service without payment of service tax, citing that sponsorship agreements related to sports events, specifically cricket tournaments, are exempt from service tax liability. The Tribunal emphasized that payments made to the Board of Control for Cricket in India for sponsorship were directly linked to the sports events and not for brand image purposes. By following the precedent set in Hero Honda Motors Ltd. case, the Tribunal quashed the adjudication orders, ruling that the demand for service tax was erroneous. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2015 22:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 146 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268842</link>
      <description>The Tribunal overturned the adjudication order confirming a demand of Rs. 5,76,80,000 for Sponsorship Service without payment of service tax, citing that sponsorship agreements related to sports events, specifically cricket tournaments, are exempt from service tax liability. The Tribunal emphasized that payments made to the Board of Control for Cricket in India for sponsorship were directly linked to the sports events and not for brand image purposes. By following the precedent set in Hero Honda Motors Ltd. case, the Tribunal quashed the adjudication orders, ruling that the demand for service tax was erroneous. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>