https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767394 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal regarding service tax on brand endorsement charges and IPL playing fees. The tribunal found that tax on brand endorsement charges was already discharged by the appellant directly or through agents, making the demand unsustainable under the legal principle "Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se." For IPL playing fees, the appellant had self-assessed and paid tax on business promotion services. The tribunal rejected extended limitation period invocation, finding no evidence of suppression or willful misstatement. All penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of Finance Act were set aside as unjustified. en-us Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:35:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767394 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal regarding service tax on brand endorsement charges and IPL playing fees. The tribunal found that tax on brand endorsement charges was already discharged by the appellant directly or through agents, making the demand unsustainable under the legal principle "Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se." For IPL playing fees, the appellant had self-assessed and paid tax on business promotion services. The tribunal rejected extended limitation period invocation, finding no evidence of suppression or willful misstatement. All penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of Finance Act were set aside as unjustified. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767394