2019 (5) TMI 1171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and it revealed that the appellant-assessee has not paid service tax on the various services. Therefore, various show cause notices were issued to the appellant-assessee to demand service tax as under:- (a) Business Support Service for service provided to BCCI-IPL; (b) Business auxiliary Services for service received from foreign agencies (c) Business Support Service for payment made to foreign players (d) Manpower recruitment or supply agency service for player transfer fees (e) Sponsorship services for amount received from Emirates, Dubai (f) Manpower recruitment or supply agency service for player release fees (g) Business Support Services for amount paid to African Earth Events with respect to PR and logistics (h) Amount in respect of gate receipts under Rule 6 (3) (i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. All show cause notices were adjudicated but show cause notice dt.20.10.2010 was dropped by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the Revenue is in appeal against the said order. For rest of the period, other show cause notices were confirmed and demand of service tax were raised against the appellant-assessee along with interest and penalties were also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vices, and the arrangement between the appellant-assessee and BCCI-IPL cannot fall either under the 'means' or 'includes' portion of definition as the nature of activities is very different. In alternate, it is his submission that BCCI is not engaged in business and commerce, therefore, the demand under the category of BSS is not sustainable. BCCI is engaged in the promotion and control of cricket and not engaged in the business or commerce to say that, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting vs. Cricket Association of Bengal-1995 (2) SCC 161 wherein it was held that BCCI is not a commercial organization. He relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association and vice versa-2018-TIOL-1345-CESTAT-DEL and Viddarbha Cricket Association vs. CCE-2015 (38) STR 99 (Tri.-Mum.). 6. We have gone through the agreement and find that the agreement is in nature of Revenue sharing and the said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Mormugao Port Trust (supra) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:- "17. The question that arises for cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....netary flow combined with convergence of two entities for such flow cannot be moulded by tax authorities into a taxable event without identifying the specific activity that links the provider to the recipient. 12. ... Unless the existence of provision of a service can be established, the question of taxing an attendant monetary transaction will not arise. Contributions for the discharge of liabilities or for meeting common expenses of a group of persons aggregating for identified common objectives will not meet the criteria of taxation under Finance Act, 1994 in the absence of identifiable service that benefits an identified individual or individuals who make the contribution in return for the benefit so derived. 13. ... Neither can monetary contribution of the individuals that is not attributable to an identifiable activity be deemed to be a consideration that is liable to be taxed merely because a "club or association" is the recipient of that contribution. 14. ... To the extent that any of these collections are directly attributable to an identified activity, such fees or charges will conform to the charging section for taxability and, to the extent that they are not so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anage the sport of cricket in India cannot be considered as involved in business or commerce with reference to activity of developing infrastructure for such sport. We do not see any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Original Authority while dropping the demand under the category of support service of business or commerce. 9. Therefore, on central rights income, no service tax is payable by the appellant-assessee. Therefore, the demand on that ground is set aside and in Appeal No.ST/597/2012, the Commissioner has rightly dropped the demand against the appellant-assessee. (b) fee paid to overseas players. 10. The Revenue sought to demand service tax from the appellant-assessee for the fee paid to overseas players under the category of Business Support Service. 11. The case of the appellant-assessee is that they are under the obligation to raise a team of 16 players for which the appellant-assessee entered into an agreement with various players including players of foreign origin. The agreement specified that the players were engaged as professional cricketers and will be provided with player fee. The players were given a consolidated consideration for fulfilling all ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on perusal of the material on record, we find that the show cause notice was issued proposing to demand service tax under business support service and the original authority has confirmed the demand under the said category whereas at the appellate stage, the Commissioner (appeals) has changed the classification from business support service to brand promotion service suo motu and unilaterally which is not permitted under law. Further, we find that this issue has been settled in favour of the assessee by various decisions relied upon by the appellant-assessee cited supra. Therefore, by following the ratio of the said decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) going beyond the show cause notice is not sustainable in law and, therefore, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the appellant-assessee. We also find that the department is also holding the view that the appellant is not liable to tax under the category of brand promotion service. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the departments appeal in view of the various decisions cited supra." 15. Therefore, we hold that on player's fee, no servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any services directly or indirectly in any manner for recruitment or supply of manpower temporarily or otherwise to a client, in the present case, the respondent cannot be said to be a commercial concern engaged in providing such specified services to a client. It is true that the definition is wide and would include any such activity where it is carried out either directly or indirectly supplying recruitment or manpower temporarily or otherwise. However, fundamentally recruitment of the agency being a commercial concern engaged in providing any such service to client would have to be satisfied. In the present case, facts are to the contrary." 18. As the main activity of the appellant-assessee to play cricket, therefore, no service tax is payable by the appellant-assessee under the category of 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency service' for transfer of player fee. (d) Demand of service tax of Rs. 58,69,790/- on the amount received as sponsorship service. 19. Ld. Counsel for the appellant-assessee submits that the appellant-assessee entered into an agreement with Emirates, Dubai for granting the sponsorship rights of the cricket team of the appellant to Emirates. Under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate hospitality area. Although the said activity had incorporated in sponsorship service as per Section 65 (105) (zzn) of the Finance Act, 1994 which is reproduced as under:- "(105) taxable service means any service provided or to be provided,- (zzzn) to anybody corporate or firm, by any firm receiving sponsorship, in relation to such sponsorship, in any manner, but does not include services in relation to sponsorship of sports events." 23. We have gone through the definition of sponsorship service. As per definition, it does not include services in relation to sponsorship of sports events and IPL is a sport event as held by this Tribunal in the case of DLF Ltd. (supra), therefore sponsoring of IPL team is not covered under sponsorship of sport event. 24. We further take note of the fact that as per CBEC circular No.334/1/2010 dt.26.2.2010, the exclusion clause is available for sponsorship services pertaining to sports events was withdrawn and the period involved in this case is prior to that, in that circumstance, we hold that the demand under the category of sponsorship service is not sustainable. (e) Demand of service tax of Rs. 10,47,356/- on the player release fee pai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to overseas agencies is not a commission but a predetermined fee for securing players for the appellant-assessee. Moreover, the overseas agencies are not causing any sale, purchase of goods or providing services on behalf of the appellant-assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said to be operating as a commission agent. 28. We find that the appellant-assessee entered into agreement with the overseas agencies for holding negotiations with overseas players as regards arrangement with IPL, which were undertaken outside India and for that activity, the amount has been paid to the overseas agencies. Such amount has been paid by the appellant-assessee for arranging player, who has to play cricket in IPL tournament and as per section 65 (19) of Finance Act, 1994 definition of business auxiliary service, the service tax is required to be paid for promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client or promotion or marketing of service provided by the client. Admittedly, organizing sport event is neither any service nor any goods, therefore, the said amount paid on account of negotiations cannot be qualified as Business Auxiliary Service under section 65 ....