2007 (5) TMI 24 - AT - Service Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI) qualifies as an "advertising agency" under the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Whether the activities of selling telecast rights, permitting advertisement space in stadiums, and allowing logos on players' clothing are taxable services under the category of advertising services.
3. Interpretation of the term "commercial concern" in the context of service tax liability.
4. Applicability of service tax on the sale of television rights and sponsorship money.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether BCCI qualifies as an "advertising agency" under the Finance Act, 1994:
The appellant contended that BCCI does not satisfy the statutory definition of an advertising agency under Section 65(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, as it is a charitable institution focused on promoting cricket and not a commercial concern. The Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal held that BCCI is not a commercial organization. Consequently, BCCI, being a charitable institution, cannot be classified as an advertising agency. The Tribunal concluded that BCCI is not a commercial concern and thus does not fall under the definition of an advertising agency. Therefore, services provided by BCCI would not be taxable under the category of advertising services.

2. Whether the activities of selling telecast rights, permitting advertisement space in stadiums, and allowing logos on players' clothing are taxable services under the category of advertising services:
The Tribunal examined the scope of individual services provided by BCCI. Selling telecast rights to broadcasters does not involve any advertisement or service rendered by BCCI to the broadcasters. The sale of performance rights does not constitute a service in relation to advertisement. Regarding sponsorship and logo money, BCCI does not engage in conceptualizing, designing, or preparing advertising material. Providing space for advertisements without involvement in the creation of the advertisement does not qualify as an advertising service. The Tribunal cited previous decisions and circulars clarifying that mere provision of space does not constitute an advertising service.

3. Interpretation of the term "commercial concern" in the context of service tax liability:
The term "commercial concern" is not defined in the Act. The Supreme Court's decision in the Cricket Association of Bengal case was used to interpret the term, concluding that BCCI is not a commercial concern. This interpretation was pivotal in determining that BCCI does not qualify as an advertising agency and, therefore, its activities are not subject to service tax under the category of advertising services.

4. Applicability of service tax on the sale of television rights and sponsorship money:
The Tribunal found that selling television rights does not involve providing any service in relation to advertisement. The contractual obligations between BCCI and broadcasters do not transform the sale of telecast rights into an advertising service. Similarly, sponsorship and logo money do not involve BCCI in the creation or preparation of advertisements. The Tribunal noted that a new service tax entry for "sale of space or time for advertisement and sponsorship services" was introduced on 1-5-2006, which excluded sports sponsorship, indicating that earlier entries did not cover these activities. This further supported the conclusion that BCCI's activities were not taxable under the advertising services category.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the orders confirming the demand of service tax and penalties on BCCI, holding that BCCI is not an advertising agency and its activities do not constitute taxable services under the category of advertising services. The appeal by the Revenue was also rejected, affirming that BCCI's activities are not subject to service tax under the disputed provisions.