TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Appellants Shri. Ashok Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the Respondent Swapnil Asnodkar is a Professional cricketer. He entered into contract with M/s Jaipur IPL Cricket P. Ltd. who are franchisee owners of Indian Premier League (IPL) team 'Rajasthan Royals'. For the period 2008 - 2012 he received a sum of Rs. 1.12 crores for play....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ization of promotional benefits to Franchisee and others and the consideration was received against said services. That the agreement stipulated 10 appearances by the player. The promotional activities in terms of agreement reveals the brand relating to goods and services. The services were provided for promoting of brands or goods, hence covered under business auxiliary services. 3. On the other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pecific clause of Section 65 (19) defining "Business Auxiliary service" has been shown to be applicable to levy service tax. It is not appearing from the show cause notice as to what goods or services the Respondent has promoted or helped to promote. The Appellate Commissioner also on the same ground has held that the demand being vague is not enforceable against the Respondent. We do not find any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he remaining is towards match fees. The Brand promotion fee was not taxable until 'Negative list' came into effect from 01.07.2010 and hence there cannot be any liability upon the Respondent till that period. Further from the agreement it is explicit that the fee towards brand promotion which falls under "Business Auxiliary Service" has remained below the exemption limit of Rs. 10 lakhs in respect....