TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ’ would attract service tax. It being a taxing provision, the same must be construed strictly and any benefit of doubt in the matter of interpretation of the provision must go in favor of the assessee. No service was provided by the player, nor requiring him to discharge any service tax. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No.ST/59766/2013-CU[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO – 70455/2018 - Dated:- 10-1-2018 - MR. Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Amresh Vashisht, Chartered Accountant, for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kr. Tripathi, Asstt. Commissioner (AR), for Respondent Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dra Kumar Singh, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for revenue. 4. After hearing both sides, we find that Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shri Sourav Ganguly Vs Union of India and Others reported at 2016 (43) STR 482 (CAL) 2016-TIOL-1283-HC-KOL-ST has dealt with an identical issue better appreciation of the issue before the Hon ble Calcutta High Court, we are reproducing para no.68 of the said order:- 68. As regards the remuneration received by the petitioner for playing JPL cricket, in my opinion, the service tax demand raised on such amount under the head of 'Business Support Service', is also not legally tenable. According to the Department, the terms of the contract that the petitioner entered into with M/S. Knight ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per the provisions of Sec. 65(104c) read with Sec. 65(105) (zzzzq) of the Finance Act, 1994. There appears to be inherent inconsistency in such decision of the Respondent No. 3. Sec. 65(105) (zzzzq) pertains to brand promotion whereas Sec. 65(104c) pertains to business auxiliary services. They are two distinct and separate categories. As already indicated above, the taxable head of brand promotion was not in existence prior to 1 July, 2010, hence, reliance on that head for levying tax on the amount received by the petitioner from the IPL franchisee is misplaced and misconceived. This is sufficient to vitiate the order. 5. While deciding the above issue Hon ble Calcutta High Court has held as under: - 69. Further, I find from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
