Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri M. Vijay, Shri Balaji I, Shri Yo Mahesh, Shri Hemang Badani, Shri Ashwin R, Shri C. Ganapathy, Shri Arun Karthik KB, Shri Kaushik Gandhi And Shri Badrinath S Versus CCE & ST, Chennai

2015 (11) TMI 1108 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Waiver of pre deposit - Business Support Services - SSI Benefit - Held that:- The applicants admitted the classification and duty liability under BPS for July, 2010 but disputed valuation. On perusal of the 2011 year agreement, it is seen that schedule1/1A (1) agreement mentions 10% of the player fee relates to sponsorship and brand promotion. However, no such specific clause exists in the earlier agreements pertaining to demand period. We also find that in the subsequent demand raised by the de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

80-41681/2014 in ST/41400-41401/2014, ST/S/41686-41705/2014 in ST/41406-41408, 41418-41440/2014 - MISC. ORDER No. 40828-40849 / 2015 - Dated:- 20-5-2015 - Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member And Shri P.K. CHOUDHARY, Judicial Member For the Petitioner : Shri Joseph Dominic, Consultant, For the respondent : Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) ORDER Per: R. Periasami As the issues involved in these appeals are identical and arising out of a common Order in Appeal No. 01 to 26/2014 (MST) dated 29.01.2014, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the lower appellate authority partially allowed their appeals and set aside that portion of the order relating to demand under BSS (prior to 01.07.2010) and upheld the order demanding service tax under BPS for the period from 01.07.2010 onwards under Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005. Hence the present appeals. 4. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) while confirming the demand has rejected their plea for taking the amount of 10% .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r the subsequent period. If only the 10% is considered they are all well within the SSI limit. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the SSI benefit. He relied on the Tribunals decision in the case of DLF Ltd. Vs. CST, Delhi 2012 (27) STR 512 (Tri.-Del.) wherein the Tribunal held that IPL is a sport event. He also submits that except two applicants i.e., Shri Ashwin and Shri Koushik Gandhi all other applicants have already deposited more than 10% as pre-deposit before the Commissioner (Appeals). He .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ghtly denied SSI exemption. He submits that in DLF Ltd. (supra) relied by the applicants pertains to the period prior to April, 2010. 6. Carefully considered submissions of both sides and we find that the lower appellate authority set aside the demand under BSS (Business Support Services) for the period April, 2008 to June, 2010 and confirmed the demand under BPS (Brand Promotion Service) from July,2010 to March,2011. The applicants admitted the classification and duty liability under BPS for Ju .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version