2012 (7) TMI 504

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is agreement as also the accounts of the appellants, Revenue was of the view that the appellants had to pay service tax on many of the activities arising out of the agreement and consequent payments received. The demand for service tax on different activities in the said context was issued and the same culminated in the adjudication order which is impugned in these proceedings. The liabilities that have been confirmed against the appellants can be broadly stated as under:- 1) Service tax amounting to Rs.3,46,60,604/- on account of business support services provided to BCCI-IPL; 2) Service tax of Rs.90,99,026/- on account of payment made to foreign players for services provided by them to the appellant in their capacity as receiver of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion order has adopted the argument that since the payment made for business promotion is not separately known, the entire payment should be liable to service tax which is not a reasonable proposition at all. He points out clause 48 of the agreement which would indicate that only 10% of the player fee is on account of Business Promotion. 4. Item 3 is in respect of commission paid by the appellants to the agency in Sri Lanka for entering into contract with the foreign players. Since the amount involved is very small and the matter is for granting stay, there was no detailed argument in this matter. 5. In respect of Item No. 4, the Counsel submits that the amount received as gate receipts by selling tickets for each match does not quali....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ition of Business Support Services. In the case of foreign players, this liability is on the appellants in their capacity as receiver of such services in view of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. 9. In the case of Cenvat credit, he argues that cost of organizing a match is recovered by gate collections. There is no service tax to be paid on such activity. Therefore, it should be considered as exempted services in view of definition of exempted services under Rule 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. So, the appellants could not have taken cenvat credit of tax paid by other service providers in organizing the match. So reversal of credit under rule 6(1) is necessary. 10. We have considered the arguments of both the sides. Prima f....