Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 347 - CESTAT AHMEDABADClassification of services - Business Auxiliary Service or not - appellant is a cricket player and engaged in paying cricket in Indian Premier League for a team owned by M/s. KPH Dreams Cricket Pvt. Limited, Chandigarh, Punjab (KPH) under the agreement between KPH and the appellant Shri Ajitesh Kamlesh Argal - receipt of remuneration - HELD THAT:- The major amount of remuneration received is towards engaging the appellant by KPH to play cricket in Indian Premier League matches - in the identical agreements, assigned other players engaged by different teams, in all those cases, this Tribunal relying on the Calcutta High Court judgment in the case of SOURAV GANGULY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2016 (7) TMI 237 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] held that arrangement between the owner Company and the cricket player is of employment hence players are not directly involved in brand promotion of a brand owner. Therefore, the activity of the cricket player does not fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Services - As per this settled legal position, in the present case also involving similar agreement and arrangement, the demand under Business Auxiliary Service does not sustain. Demand of service tax on remuneration received by the appellant from M/s. Nike India Pvt. Limited - HELD THAT:- In this case the appellant is indeed involved in direct brand promotion for the brand owner however, the appellant have claimed that the value of such service is well within the threshold limit provided under exemption notification 6/2005-ST dated 01.05.2005 - since the remuneration received by the appellant from KPH does not involve any service, the appellant shall be eligible for small scale exemption provided under Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.05.2005 upto threshold limit of gross value in a financial year. The demand raised in the impugned orders is not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favour of appellant.
|