TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ORDER Per P. Dinesha In all these appeals, as the issue involved is common, are taken up for hearing together. The assessees are aggrieved by the demand raised against them for the alleged services for the period after 01.07.2010 to 31.03.2011 under the category of Brand Promotion services (BPS) under Section 65(105) (zzzzq); and the department is aggrieved by the deletion of the demand raised against the assessees for the period upto 30.06.2010 under Business Support Service (BSS). 2. The appellants are cricket players, representing various Teams owned by various franchisees, in the IPL. The Revenue, on the ground that it had gathered some inputs during investigation that the assessee's were providing BSS upto 30.06.2010 and BPS for the subsequent periods, issued Show Cause Notices which are as under:- S.No. Appeal No. Assessee SCN No. & date Period involved S.Tax demand proposed in the SCN under the category of service 1 ST/41245/14 L. Balaji 667/2010 18.10.10 2009-10 2010-11 19,28,999 BSS 2 ST/41246/14 L. Balaji 335/10 30.04.10 2008-09 14,90,371 BSS 3 ST/41247/14 S. Badrinath 650/10 18.10.10 2009-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....K.B 63/2010 14.10.2011 2009-10 2,36,122 BSS 32 ST/41429/14 Arun Karthik K.B 63/2011 21.10.2011 2010-11 1,77,426 BSS/BPS 33 ST/41430/14 Kaushik Gandhi 71/2010 18.10.10 2010-11 38,249 BSS 34 ST/41431/14 Kaushik Gandhi 62/2011 21.10.11 2010-11 24,503 BSS/BPS 35 ST/41432/14 Palani Amarnath 18/2010 05.04.10 2008-09 3,90,355 BSS 36 ST/41433/14 Palani Amarnath 59/10 14.10.10 2009-10 3,48,180 BSS 37 ST/41434/14 Palani Amarnath 64/11 21.10.11 2010-11 65,367 BSS/BPS 38 ST/41435/14 Abhinav Mukund 19/10 05.04.10 2008-09 3,90,335 BSS 39 ST/41436/14 Abhinav Mukund 64/10 14.10.10 2009-10 2010-11 3.08,160 BSS 40 ST/41437/14 Abhinav Mukund 61/11 21.10.11 2010-11 65,367 BSS/BPS 41 ST/41438/14 Badrinath S 336/10 30.04.10 2008-09 14,90,371 BSS 42 ST/41439/14 Badrinath S 650/10 18.10.10 2009-10 2010-11 19,28,999 BSS 43 ST/41440/14 Badrinath S 59/11 21.10.11 2010-11 3,92,203 BSS/BPS 44 ST/42014/16 R. Aswin SOD 63/12 22.10.12 2008-09 2009-10 to 2010-11 2011-12 4,86,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that all the adjudicating authorities have confirmed the entire demand, both under BSS in respect of the first SCN and under BPS in respect of the 2nd SCN, like for example: in the case of M. Vijay adjudicating authority reviews/scrutinizes contract, extracts Section 65 (104c) & (105) (zzzq) and at paragraph 11.2, and thereafter imposed equal penalties under Section 76 & 77 of the Act as well. The assessees preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who passed a common order dated 29.01.2014 in respect of 13 assessees, in Order-in-Appeals No. 01-26/2014 (MST), a separate order was passed vide OIA No. 34 & 35/2014 on the same day in respect of the assessee Shri Yo Mahesh. 4. Ld. Consultant, Shri Joseph Dominic appeared on behalf of the assessees and the Ld. DR, Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Contentions:- 5.1 It is the case of the Ld. Consultant for the assessees, interalia, that the conclusion of the Revenue that the assessees had rendered business promotion services which cannot be considered as BSS; M/s. India Cements Ltd. (ICL in short) did not outsource any part of their business activities to the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch of the CESTAT in the case of Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs. CST, Delhi - 2013 (332) STR 371 (Tri.-Del.) which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2016 (44) STR 159 (S.C). The Ld. Consultant also drew our attention to the CBEC Circular dated 26.07.2010 which in fact has also been referred to by the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata (supra). Ld. Consultant also relied on the following decisions to support his contention that a composite contract is required to be bifurcated in order to arrive at the taxable value of the services a. National Institute of Bank Management Vs. CCE, Pune 2013 (32) STR 340 (Tri.-Mum.) b. Vikas Coaching Centre Vs. CCE, Guntur 2011 (22) STR 650 (Tri.-Bang.) 5.4 On the allegation of brand promotion of the franchisee, the ld. Consultant drew support from the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Peoples' Automobiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kanpur - 2011 (24) STR 635 (Tri.-Del.) to say that using recipient's brand name while providing a service to them would not mean using the recipient's brand name for providing the service. 5.5. With regard to the next batch of appeals pertaining to the period 2011-12 the demand for whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dicating authority holds that the assessee had thus rendered his services in promoting the business of M/s. ICL, the franchisee owners of Chennai Super Kings in the IPL, a taxable activity under BSS. With regard to the demand under Business Promotion Services for the period post 01.07.2010, Ld. DR relied on the findings of the first appellate authority. Our Analysis and Findings: 7.1 The period of dispute in all the above appeals is 2008-09 to 2010-11; upto 30.06.2010 the service tax was fastened by categorizing the service under BSS whereas, for the period 01.07.2010 to 31.03.2011, the demand is raised by categorizing the same under Business Promotion Service. 7.2 The genesis of the dispute is the tripartite agreement between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), franchisee and the assessee the terms and conditions of which are common in respect of all the players/assessees except the remuneration. On a perusal of the above tripartite agreement titled "Indian Premiere League Playing Contract" (Contract in short) it clearly emerges that it is the assessee who is recognized as a player first. There is also one another agreement between the franchisee and the ass....