9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llengers Sports Pvt. Ltd. who are franchisee of M/s. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Indian Premier League (IPL). It was alleged that the appellant himself was engaged in carrying out advertising, promotional activities, team endorsement, etc., and received an amount of Rs.21,88,000/- and not paid service tax of Rs.5,66,562/- for the period 2008-09 and 2009-10, hence show-cause notice was issued to him for recovery of the said amount with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demands have been confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, he filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A), who in turn rejected his appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 2.1 At the outset, the learned advocate for the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aged in promotion or marketing or sale of goods or services, thus, there is no promotion and marketing of sale of goods and services belonging to the client. It is his contention that at best these services rendered by the appellant can be termed as brand promotion which fall under the category of "brand promotion" and became taxable with effect from 1.7.2010, clarified by the Board vide Circular No.334/1/2010-TRU dated 26.2.2010. 3. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (A). 4. Heard both sides. The short issue involved in the present appeal is whether the services rendered by the appellant would fall under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service'. We find that the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Shri Mitra, do you agree that a service provided by a person-that includes a cricket player/celebrity also-for promoting or marketing of logos/brands/marks of the franchisee/sponsors falls under the taxable category of 'Business support services'? If you agree, please confirm whether due service tax has been paid by Shri Sourav Ganguly on this court in respect of IPL events. If non-the reasons there for. Ans: No, I do not agree in principle. This is because there is a separate classification of service under Brand Ambassador promoting brand of goods/services; Mr. Sourav Ganguly has duly obtained S. Tax registration as a service provider under 'Brand Ambassador for promoting brand of goods/services'-as already stated herein above. In I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrect. In the first instance, as noted above, the appellant had received the fees for playing cricket only and even otherwise, it is a settled principle of law that if no machinery exists to exclude non-taxable service, a composite contract is not taxable since law must provide a measure or value of the rate to be applied and any vagueness in the legislative scheme makes the levy fatal. 59. The confirmation of demand under this head, therefore, cannot be sustained." The aforesaid observations of the Tribunal has subsequently been followed in the cases of Bharat Chipli and Anil Kumble (supra) by this Tribunal. 5. In view of the above consistent findings, we do not find merit in the impugned order. Consequently, the same is set aside and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
