TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 2009-10 2010-11 19,28,999 BSS 4 ST/41248/14 S. Badrinath 336/10 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 4,86,131 BPS 45 ST/42015/16 S. Badrinath SOD62/12 22.10.12 2008-09 2009-10 to 2010-11 4,62,441 BPS 46 ST/42016/16 Abhinav Mukund SOD 54/12 26.09.12 2008-09 2009-10 to 2010-11 58,056 BSS/BPS 47 ST/42017/16 Yo Mahesh SOD 57/12 09.10.12 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 66,708 BSS/BPS 48 ST/4059....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 assessees and therefore there cannot be any scope for rendering any service which could be treated as BSS; that prior to 01.07.2010 brand promotion was not a taxable service and therefore, brand promotion, if at all, could not be classified under BSS even prior to 01.07.2010; that even though the activities of the assessees could be brought under Brand Promotion service under Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 which were raised under the Brand Promotion service, the ld. Consultant reiterated his primary contention that by virtue of employer-employee relationship as laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata, there is no liability under service tax. It was his further contention that the prize money was an amount paid by BCCI to each of the assessees/players at the end of each season on the basis ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 assessee wherein also, an assessee is recognized as a player, clause -2 of this agreement even makes it all the more clear that the franchisee is engaging player as a professional cricketer who shall be employed by the franchisee. From this, it is abundantly clear that a person who has earned the reputation and recognition as a player is employed by the franchisee and it is not the other way round.....