2023 (2) TMI 829

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of the product of the appellant such as logo, trademark, products manufactured by the appellant. The service provider M/s. KPH has discharged the service tax and issued the invoice. 02. The case of the department is that the service is correctly classifiable under Sponsorship Service according to which the service recipient is required to pay the service tax in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 therefore, the service tax under the head of Business Auxiliary Service by the service provider is incorrect and consequentially the appellant is not entitled for the cenvat credit. 03. Shri Anandodaya Mishra, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that since service provider has paid the service tax u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. has classified the service under Business Auxiliary Service and discharged the service tax and issued the invoice. Firstly, the classification of service cannot be disputed at the recipient end secondly, the classification of service maintained by the service provider M/s. K.P.H. Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. has been considered in judgment of COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD. reported at 2015 (38) STR 497 which is reproduced below:- After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant entered into a contract with an agreement with KPH Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. for sponsoring the Cricket team Kings XI Punjab. On the said contractual consideration, a Service Tax of Rs. 37,08,000/- was collected by M/s. KPH from the pres....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by appellant 2010 (18) S.T.R. 803 (Com. A) and 2009 (13) S.T.R. 421 (Tri.-Ahmd.) does not support their case as in this case classification of services rendered has changed from business auxiliary services to independently classifiable services namely sponsorship service". 4. As is seen from above, the payment of Service Tax in respect of the same service is not being disputed by the Revenue. However, their contention is that the sponsoring of the Cricket team amounts to providing sponsoring service and as such the liability would fall upon the appellant. Commissioner (Appeals) has also held that sponsoring of a Cricket team is not outside the scope of sponsorship service. 5. Apart from noting that the issue of sponsorshi....