2018 (2) TMI 290

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cricketer and represented 'Rajasthan Royals', a franchisee owned by M/s. Jaipur Indian Premier League Cricket Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai in the Indian Premier League. Intelligence was gathered that the appellant was rendering business support services to Jaipur Indian Premier League Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and was not discharging his service tax liability on the retainer fee received by him from Jaipur Indian Premier League Cricket Pvt. Ltd. Therefore the officers of Service Tax Department, Nagpur conducted an investigation in which it was noticed that Jaipur Indian Premier League Cricket Pvt. Ltd. is the owner of Rajasthan Royals. The Board for Control of Cricket in India is the apex governing body for cricket in India and the Board in order to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the facts on the law. He further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the binding precedent on the same issue. It is his further submission that the impugned order is non-speaking and it has not considered all the submissions of the appellant and has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the show cause notice and has confirmed the demand of service tax under brand promotion service as defined under Finance Act, 1994 whereas this was never the case of the depart....