TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 491
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Involved Service Tax Penalty Shri Irfankhan M Pathan 2008-09 (from 3.6.08) to 2010-11 Rs. 1,21,95,200/- Rs. 1,21,95,200/- u/s 78 Rs. 200/- per day u/s 77(1) Rs. 5,000 u/s 77(2) Shri Yusufkhan M Pathan 2008-09 (from 3.6.08) to 2010-11 Rs.65,59,040/- Rs. 65,59,040/- u/s 78 Rs. 200/- per day u/s 77(1) Rs.5,000 u/s 77(2) 3. Both the appellants are international cricket players and they had entered into contract with the cricket team owners (known as franchisee) whereby they were employed/engaged to play cricket for the respective teams in terms of the contract for IPL-1, IPL-2, IPL-3 seasons. The fees paid to the appellants has been held to be liable to service tax under the service category of "Business Support Ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay not be covered since they were not promoting any particular brand. Further, he also relies upon the definition and clarification and Business Support Service to submit that the essential activity under Business Support Service is of outsourcing. 5. The ld. A.R. on the other hand draws our attention to the provisions in the contract which required appellants to participate in promotional/public events and failure to do so would attract deduction of 5% of player fee for each failure. He also submits that the contract specifically provides that the player is required to participate in at least ten such activities. He also submits that the contract also provides for deduction in player fee for failure to play in matches. The provisions rela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....am Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and reported in cannot be applied since in that case Tribunal itself had observed that in the case of payment made to the players, the appellants have a prima-facie case. Further, he also submitted that the issue of limitation was not considered and in view of the technicalities involved in this case and the nature of dispute being purely technical, extended period could not have been invoked. Nevertheless, we have to take note of the fact that in the two decisions cited above, the service tax was demanded from the franchisees in respect of fee paid to foreign players by invoking reverse charge mechanism for recovering the service tax since the players involved were foreigners. Under these circumstances both the decisio....