TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of other players engaged by different teams, in all those cased, this Tribunal relying on the High Court 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 acti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by M/s. Indiawin Sports Private Limited, Mumbai (ISPL for short) (formerly known as Rathipriya Trading Private Ltd). Under the agreement between ISPL and the appellant Shri Pinal Shah, the appellant received remuneration for playing cricket for ISPL. As regard the remuneration received from ISPL, the case of the department is that the appellant have provided the service of brand promotion which fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us. C.Ex., Goa Vs. Swapnil Asnodkar 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 479 (Tr. Mumbai). C.E, C CGT Delhi Vs. Piyush Chawal 2018 (7) TMI- 1009 New Delhi Yogesh Takawake 2019 (8) TMI 1693- CESTAT, Mumbai Sourav Ganguly 2016 (7) TMI- 237- Calcutta High Court. Umesh Yadav 2018 (2) TMI 135- CESTAT Mumbai Shri Karan Sharma 2018 (4) TMI 111- CESTAT Allahabad 4. Shri Vijay G Iyeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cket player does not fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Services. AS per this settles legal position, in the present case also involving similar agreement and arrangement, the demand of under Business Auxiliary Service does not sustain. 6. As per our above observation and findings, the demand raised in the impugned orders is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
