TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d it was substituted by any person in the definition of Advertising Agency w.e.f. 01.05.2006 - During the disputed period, the appellant did not fall in the definition of commercial concern because there is no profit motive of the appellant and the appellant is registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act as a charitable institution - the appellants are not liable to pay service tax under Advertising Agency and the demand of service tax confirmed under Advertising Agency is not sustainable in law - demand set aside. Sponsorship service - HELD THAT:- As per the agreement entered with the brand owners, the appellants have received sponsorship amount towards teams and in turn the appellant has allowed the brand owners to display their brands on all the clothing worn by the team on the field during matches. This activity of displaying the sponsors logo and brand name or trade name fall under the head of Sponsorship Service which is taxable only from 01.05.2006 whereas the period involved in the present case is prior to 01.05.2006 - This issue has been decided in favour of the appellant in the case of BCCI Vs CST [2007 (5) TMI 24 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] therefore the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner also demanded interest and imposed penalty under Section 76,77 78. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is an association affiliated to Board of Control for Cricket in India and founded with an object to control, regulate, help, encourage, promote and develop the game of cricket in the State of Karnataka. The appellant is permitted to conduct cricket matches in accordance with the rules and regulations of BCCI. The appellant is registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act and also exempted from payment of income tax as a charitable institution in terms of Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant is not engaged in any trade, commerce or business, except for promotion of game of cricket. The appellant is also registered with the Service Tax Department under the category of Club or Association Services and also registered under the category of Mandap Keeper Services and for these services, the appellants have been discharging the Service Tax liability and filing Returns regularly. The Department entertained a view that the appellants are evading the payment of Service Tax under the category of Business Adve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the Instadia Advertisement Agreement entered into with M/s. Sporting Frontiers (India) Pvt. Ltd., they have granted the right to use the Advertising Sites, right to exhibit advertising of any kind and right to use Advertising signs during the cricket matches and extra matches in which there is no activity of providing any service connected with the making, preparation, display or exhibition of Advertisement and the same cannot be classifiable under Advertising Agency as defined in Section 65(3) of the Act. He further submitted that the said activity is nothing but sale of space for advertisement and the same is taxable in terms of Section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Act w.e.f. 01.05.2006. He further submitted that in the case of Vidarbha Cricket Association Vs CCE, Nagpur reported in 2015 (38) STR 99 (Tri. Mumbai), the Tribunal examined the similar agreement entered by the same party with M/s. Vidarbha Cricket Association, Nagpur and has upheld the classification of the said service under sale of space for advertisement as defined in Section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Act. He also placed reliance in the case of The Tamil Nadu Cricket Association Vs CST, Chennai reported in 2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n case to case basis. 4.1. He further submitted that the appellant being a charitable association cannot be considered as commercial concern . In the impugned order, the Commissioner wrongly relied on a circular applicable to the period post disputed period. As far as amount received towards sponsorship is concerned, the appellants submitted that as per the agreement entered with the brand owners, they have received the sponsorship amount towards teams and in turn the appellant has allowed the brand owners to display their brands on all the clothing worn by the team on the field during matches. In the said activity except displaying brands of their clients, there is no brand promotion or marketing of products or services of the client by the appellant to classify the same under the head of BAS . He also submitted that the activity of displaying the sponsor s logo/brand name or trade name falls under the head of sponsorship service as defined in Section 99(a) of the Finance Act, 1994, which came into effect only from 01.05.2006 and the said activity cannot be made liable to service tax under the head of BAS for the period prior to 01.05.2006. In support of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-clauses (i) to (vi), such as billing, issue or collection or recovery of cheques, payments, maintenance of accounts and remittance, inventory management, evaluation or development of prospective customer of vendor, public relation services, management or supervision, and includes services as a commission agent, but does not include any information technology service and any activity that amounts to manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944). 3. sponsorship includes naming an event after the sponsor, displaying the company logo or trading name, giving the sponsor exclusive or priority rights, sponsoring prizes or trophies for competition; but does not include financial or other support in the form of donations or gifts, given by the subject to the condition that the service provider is under no obligation vide anything in return to such donors. 4. Mandap means any immovable property as defined in section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) and includes any furniture, fixtures, light fittings and floor coverings therein let out for a consideration fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay service tax under Advertising Agency and the demand of service tax confirmed under Advertising Agency is not sustainable in law therefore we set aside the same. As far as sponsorship service is concerned, we find that as per the agreement entered with the brand owners, the appellants have received sponsorship amount towards teams and in turn the appellant has allowed the brand owners to display their brands on all the clothing worn by the team on the field during matches. This activity of displaying the sponsors logo and brand name or trade name fall under the head of Sponsorship Service which is taxable only from 01.05.2006 whereas the period involved in the present case is prior to 01.05.2006. This issue has been decided in favour of the appellant in the case of BCCI Vs CST cited supra therefore we hold that the demand of service tax under BAS is also not sustainable in law. As far as amount received for fund raising activity under the category of Mandap Keeper Service is concerned, we find that the appellants have let out its ground to one Sangamitra Foundation for a fund raising activity for a consideration of ₹ 17,50,000/- but the appellant did not get t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
