TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) matches and had entered into contract with 'Knight Riders Sports Private Limited' (herein after referred to as 'the Knight Riders', for short) for playing cricket matches in IPL tournaments against remuneration/player fees and other benefits to be received in terms of such contract. For the purpose of payment of service tax on 'other taxable services' and for compliance with the Service Tax statute, the appellant is registered with the jurisdictional Commissionerate under service tax registration No. BSTPS5445KSD001. 2.2 During the disputed period from April, 2008 to March, 2012, the appellant had entered into two contracts viz., contract dated 07.01.2009 with the Knight Riders and contract dated 06.04.2011 with Knight Riders & IPL for playing cricket for IPL season-2 and IPL season-4 respectively. BCCI-IPL is a sub-committee of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), specifically created for the purpose of holding Indian Premier League Matches. M/s. Knight Riders Sports Private Limited is a franchisee under the consortium, which engages various players to play cricket in the IPL Twenty-20 matches. The appellant herein, Shri Iqbal Abdullah, is a cricket player for su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, in the absence of documentary evidence providing such portion of the amount, he had accepted the taxable value suggested by the order of the original authority for purpose of demanding service tax. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent he had confirmed the service tax demands for the period October, 2010 to March, 2012, the appellant had filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. This appeal was placed for hearing before the Tribunal on various dates in the past viz., 27.09.2024, 07.03.2025, 02.05.2025 and on 09.07.2025. However, since none had been appearing on behalf of the appellant and as the issue under dispute has already been examined by the Tribunal in a number of cases involving similar set of facts, with the assistance of learned AR, the appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal in the following paragraphs. 4. We find that the issue in dispute lies in the narrow compass of determining whether the activity of playing cricket by the appellant in the IPL league matches, wherein the appellant was obliged to wear the team clothing as supplied by the IPL franchise i.e., the Knight Riders, allowing them to photograph hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver service tax on the promotional activities covering the period April 2010 to March 2011. The appellant has contended that all the facts were well within the knowledge of the department from the year 2011 when inquiry for the past period was initiated. I also find that the show cause notice dated 17th Jan. 2010 had been adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 31.01.2012 and the periodical show cause notice for the subsequent period i.e. 2010-11 on which the appellant has argued on the issue of limitation, was issued on 16.4.2012 and also on 17.10.2012 on the same issue. Placing reliance on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ECE Industries & Nizam Sugar Factory (supra), I am, of the view that the scn for the period April 2010 to September 2010 should have been issued within one year from the date of filing of the ST-3 return for the said period. However, in the instant case, the appellant was not registered with service tax and had not filed any return, the relevant date for issue of SCN would be 25th October 2011. Since the SCN for the period April 2010 to September 2010 has been issued on 16.4.2012, the demand for the period April 2010 to S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as such clothing is worn during the time of playing the cricket game and other related activities. Therefore, in our view it would not strictly fit into the taxable category of promotion and marketing services as per the definition provided under Section 65(105)(zzzzq) ibid. 7. In this regard, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Umesh Yadav Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur which involve identical set of facts of the present case, reported in 2018-TIOL 1179-CESTAT-MUM had passed the Final Order dated 31.01.2018 in Service Tax Appeal Nos. 85079/2015 & 85381/2015, wherein they had set aside the revision of service tax category for demand of service tax by the Commissioner (Appeals), which is different from the one for which SCN was issued and confirmed by the original authority. The relevant paragraphs of the said order is quoted below: "6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich he was obliged to participate in promotional activities apart from playing cricket for their franchisee and the department sought to tax the consideration received by the Petitioner from their franchisee under 'Business Support Service'. The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta held that the Petitioner was engaged as a professional cricketer for which the franchisee was to provide fee to the petitioner. He was under full control of the franchisee and had to act in the manner instructed by the franchisee. The Hon'ble High Court further held that the Petitioner therein was not providing any service as an independent individual worker and his status was that of an employee. Therefore it cannot be said that the Petitioner was rendering any service which could be classified as Business Support Service. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are extracted as under:- 68. "As regards the remuneration received by the petitioner for playing IPL cricket, in my opinion, the service tax demand raised on such amount under the head of Business Support Service" is also not legally tenable. Accordingly to the Department, the terms of the contract that the petitioner entered into wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was under full control of the franchisee and had to act in the manner instructed by the franchisee. The apparel that he had to wear was team clothing and the same could not exhibit any badge, logo, mark, trade name etc. The Petitioner was not providing any service as an independence individual worker. His status was that of an employee rather than an independent worker or contractor or consultant. In my opinion, it cannot be said that the petitioner was rendering any service which could be classified as business support service. He was simply a purchased member of a team serving and performing under KKR and was not providing any service to KKR as an individual. In this regard, I fully endorse and agree with the order dated 6 June, 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi-III in Appeal No. 330- 332/SVS/RTK/2014, the facts of which case was similar to the fats of the instant case, excepting that the player concerned in that case was a member of the Chennai Super Kings." [Emphasis Supplied] 71. "In view of the aforesaid, in my view, the remuneration received by the petitioner from the IPL franchisee could not be taxed under business support ....