AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x on taxable services rendered by them namely "Sale of Space & Time for Advertisement" and "Renting of Immovable Property", the officers conducted investigation which culminated in issuance of show cause notice dated 29.1.2008. After adjudication, the original authority confirmed demand of service tax of Rs. 91,38,453/- and Rs. 1,06,569/- being the service tax payable on Sale of Space and Time for Advertisement for the period 1.5.2006 to 30.9.2007 and renting of immovable property service for the period 1.6.2007 to 30.9.2007 respectively. Further a sum of Rs. 1,82,769/- and Rs. 2,131/- was confirmed for the same period being the Educational cess on the amount payable for above said service respectively. Another demand of Rs. 1,066/- being t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne of Rs. 14,14,950/-. That the appellant failed to discharge the service tax only due to the fact that taxable services of 'Sale of Space and Time for Advertisement' was introduced only from 1.5.2006 and considering the comprehensive scope of the agreement, the appellant was under bona fide belief that the activities would not be covered under the said category. That there was no malafide intention to evade payment of serviced tax and therefore he pleaded that the penalties may be set aside. 2.2 That appellant was rendering other services which would not fall under 'Sale of Space and Time for Advertisement' services. The department has demanded service tax on the consideration received for entering into sponsorship servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the period. That the appellant failed to discharge the service tax only due to bona fide belief that the said services are not subject to levy of service tax and pleaded that the penalties on this count may be set aside. 3. Against this, the Id. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He drew our attention to paragraphs 6.4 to 6.6 of the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant has allowed the customers to display their name on the stands / boxes kept in the stadium and therefore these would amount to advertisement. Thus, the activity would fall under 'Sale of Space for Advertisement'. The contention of the appellants that these are only sponsorship services cannot be accepted. These bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ject to the condition that the service provider is under no obligation to provide anything in return to such donors. "Section 65(105)(zzzn) Taxable service means any service provided or to be provided to any body corporate or firm, by any person receiving sponsorship, in relation to such sponsorship, in any manner, but does not include services in relation to sponsorship of sports events. 9. The main contention put forward by the Id. counsel is with regard to the demand raised for the period 1.5.2006 to 30.9.2007 shown in Sl. No.2 and 3 of the Table above. Department has demanded service tax for the consideration received for providing stands / boxes inside the stadium. We have perused the sponsorship agreements produced. The said agr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as only right to display his name on the stand / box. Further, they are also given exclusive priority booking rights. The definition of sponsorship reveals that the activity carried out by the appellant by entering such sponsorship agreements are more akin to sponsorship service which are taxable only with effect from 1.5.2006. Further, these sponsorship services are in relation to sports events and are not taxable services as laid down under section 65(105)(zzzn) of the Finance Act, 1994. We therefore hold that the amount received as per sponsorship agreements for boxes and stands are not leviable to tax under Sale of Space for Advertisement and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. 11. Although the impugned order has demanded a....