2024 (8) TMI 791

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nitiated by the Revenue by issuing Show Cause Notice dated 10.09.2010. Revenue alleges that the appellant received consideration in terms of a contract with M/s KPH Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. has rendered the taxable service of "Business Support Service" to various franchises of IPL; in terms of Contract with M/s Corner Stone Sports and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. endorsed the brand of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories and from M/s Rhiti Sports and Management Pvt. Ltd. for a reality show; the appellant did not pay the applicable service tax on the same. 2. Shri Gajendra Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that there are three issues in the instant case i.e (i) liability of service on consideration received from M/s KPH Dream Cricket P....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s been charged for service tax; M/s Rhiti had engaged the appellant for a reality show "Chak De Bache" for M/s INX Media Pvt. Ltd; M/s Rhiti have discharged the applicable service tax on the consideration received by them from M/s INX Media; therefore, there is no question of payment of service tax on the same by the appellant when the agent has already paid it. He relies on the following cases: Zaheerkhan B. Khan- 2014 (33) STR 75 (Tri. Mumbai) Katrina R. Turcottte - 2013 (31) STR 670 (Tri. Ahmd.) 5. Shri Harish Kapoor, learned Authorized Representative for the Department, reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that as there is no contract between the appellant and M/s Rhiti, it cannot be said that M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of 2016 dtd. 11.08.2023-Del. Tribunal. Comm. ST, Delhi v. Ms. Shriya Saran- [2014] 48 taxmann.com 209-Del. Tribunal. Comm. Of C.C.E., Goa v. Swapnil Asnodkar-2018(1) TMI 266 Dtd. 10.11.2017- Mum. Tribunal. Faiz Fazal v. C.C.E. Nagpur- ST/86456/14- Mum. Tribunal. Shri Harbhajan Singh - Final Order No.60174/2024 dated 15.04.2024. 7. Coming to the other issues of service tax liability on the appellant on endorsement services and participation in a reality show, we find that Tribunal in the case of Katrina R. Turcotte (supra) held that: 6. In this case, the appellant has provided the service for promotion of product by agreeing as model herself for advertisement films, TV commercials, still photo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 65(7) of the Finance Act, wherein the 'assessee' means a person liable to pay service tax and includes his agent. In this case appellant has appointed M/s. Matrix as her agent to discharge her service tax liability on her behalf and same has been discharged by M/s. Matrix. 8. Learned Authorized Representative argues that there is no principal and agent relationship between the appellant and M/s Rhiti as there is no agreement between them; therefore, the service tax paid by M/s Rhiti cannot obviate liability of the appellant. We find that the argument is not acceptable for two reasons. One being that there is no requirement of a formal agreement between the appellant and M/s Rhiti; the way things are arranged in course of the business....