2018 (9) TMI 832

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd are affiliated to the Board of Control for Cricket in India. They had conducted matches during January - May, 2007. The appellant had entered into an agreement with M/s Sporting Frontiers (India) Pvt. Ltd. (SFIL) and had granted them advertising rights and received a consideration of Rs. 95 Lakhs from them during this period. The right for advertisement in the stadium was sold in the shape of space to their customers by M/s Sporting Frontiers (India) Pvt. Ltd.. 2. Ld. Counsel argued that M/s Sporting Frontiers (India) Pvt. Ltd. had paid tax on entire consideration received by them and the value sought to be taxed under the head of 'Sale of space or time' for advertisement is already taxed at the hands of M/s SFIL. He argued that the Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hey were also displaying advertisement in the LED screens fixed around the ground. He, argued that the banners shown in the said LED screen do not constitute sale of space or time for advertisement. 2.4 He further argued that penalty under section 76 has been imposed. However, the issue under dispute are issues of interpretation and therefore, penalty should not have been imposed. He relied on the following decision: a) M/s. Sonar Wire Limited 1996-87-ELT-439(T) b) M/s. Sports & Leisure Apparel Ltd. 2005-180-ELT-429 (Tri.- Del.) 3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. 4. We have gone through rival submissions. We find that the appellant's are admittedly paying taxes under the head of 'sale of space or time for advertisement' for the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ght to be taxed under the sponsorship service at the hands of service provider and on the exact same amount of sponsorship received the service recipient had deposited the tax. In the instant case the tax paid is an entirely different transaction. Thus, the facts were different. One transaction was not an input service for another transaction, but it was only one transaction under consideration. Thus, the decision in the case of Coca-Cola and Idea Cellular is of no avail. In the case of M/s. G.R. Movers payment of tax on full value was not disputed whereas in the instant case no evidence of same has been produced. In view of above, the appeal in so far as it relates to demand of service tax for sale of space or time to M/s SFIL is upheld.....