TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d after going through the records, we find that since common issues are involved in all these cases, all the case are grouped together for common disposal. 2. Periods of dispute are as under:- S. No. Appeal No. Period of dispute 1. ST/41526/2013 2010 - 2011 2. ST/42271/2014 April 2011 to March 2012 3. ST/41358/2018 April 2012 to June 2012 4. ST/41794/2018 July 2012 to March 2013 5. ST/41795/2018 April 2013 to March 2014 6. ST/41796/2018 April 2014 to March 2015 3. Heard Smt. Radhika Chandrasekar for the appellant and Shri R. Rajaraman, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue. 4. After hearing both sides and after perusing the impugned orders, we find that co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... own case for different periods wherein the coordinate Bench has granted relief to the appellant by following the orders of other coordinate Benches referred supra in the following words:- "19.1 From the above decision, it can be seen that the income received by the appellant from Central rights is nothing but revenue sharing and not consideration for services provided to BCCI-IPL. Following the decision in the case of KPH Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and M/s. Jaipur IPL Cricket Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we are of the view that the demand under this head cannot sustain and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. ****** ****** ***** 22. The fourth issue is with regard to the demand raised alleging that the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s his submission that the promotional activities were ancillary to the main activity of playing cricket. Therefore, no service tax is payable. To support his contention, he relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sourav Ganguly v. Union of India - 2016 (43) S.T.R. 482 (Cal.) and decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Karn Sharma v. CCE & ST - 2018 (4) TMI 111-CESTAT-Allahabad and C.E., C & CGT v. Piyush Chawla - 2018 (7) TMI 1009- CESTAT-Delhi. 13. We find that the main activity of the appellant-assessee is to play cricket apart from that, the appellant-assessee are engaged in the promotional activities which are ancillary to the main activity of playing cricket. In the case of Sourav Gan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge, 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 catego....