TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 1308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith different periods namely, 2008-09 and 2009-10. 2. The applicant is a franchisee of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for organizing IPL matches. The applicant owns its own team by name 'Chennai Super Kings' which team takes part in IPL matches. There is an agreement between the BCCI and the applicant detailing the responsibilities of each party towards the other. One of the clauses relates to franchise charges to be paid by the applicant. In this proceeding there is no dispute about the service charge to be paid on such amount. These appeals involve disputes about service tax on certain other amounts received and also amounts paid by the applicant. These are tabulated below broadly indicating the service involved, the tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... classified under the definition of Business Support Service as defined in Section 65(104c) of Finance Act, 1994. He argues that the applicant is not supporting any business of BCCI. It is in fact, a business arrangement wherein both the parties put together resources, incur expenditure and undertake different activities to generate income most of which is received in the hands of BCCI but shared among BCCI and other participating teams as per pre-agreed ratios. Since resources, activities and risks are shared by both the parties, he argues that this cannot be considered as a case where either of the parties is providing service to the other. 4. In the case of foreign support staff providing support to the applicant, the demand is under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. So demand is confirmed for credit proportional to the value of exempted service. The Ld. Advocate submits that the sale of ticket is not a service at all and is an activity subject to entertainment tax by state authorities and there is no reason to reverse any credit considering this as excepted service. 7. According to him, the applicant is contesting taxability under each of the issues and particularly the taxability of revenue-share received from BCCI. He points out that the Tribunal has already granted stay in respect of another team, viz, KPH Dream Cricket (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE- 2012 (26) STR 362. He also relies on the decision of ESPN Software (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner -2011 (23) STR 400 in which case also the two parties had ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amined and a conclusion has to be arrived at whether there was service provided by one party to the other. 9. The learned AR submits that organizing IPL matches is a business of BCCI and the applicant is providing all necessary support for organizing those matches and whatever consideration is received has to be considered as consideration for the service provided irrespective of the form, that is whether revenue sharing or fixed sum. He further submits that in the definition at section 65(104c), the main clause need to be looked into and when the activity falls within the main part of the definition, it is not necessary to see whether the activity falls under any of the specifically enumerated activities in the definition under the incl....