2014 (6) TMI 31 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - event management service - Held that - Revenue wants to charge Service Tax under the category event management service . As per the provisions of Section 65(40) of the Finance Act, event management means any service provided in relation to planning, promotion, organizing or presentation of any arts, entertainment, business, sports, marriage or any other event and includes any consultations provided in this regard. As per the provisions of Section 65(41) of the Finance Act, event manager means any person who is engaged in providing any service in relation to event management in any manner. From the facts on record we find that there is no request by any franchisee or co-sponsors to organize the cricket tournament. The respondents on their own are organizing the cricket tournament. However, the franchisees or co-sponsors advertise their products by way of putting hoardings during the tournament - there is no evidence on record to show that the respondents organized the tournaments at the request of the co-sponsors or franchisees. Therefore it cannot be said that the respondents have provided any event management service and therefore the same would not attract any Service Tax - there is no evidence on record to show that the respondents organized the tournaments at the request of the co-sponsors or franchisees. Therefore it cannot be said that the respondents have provided any event management service - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding service tax demand under 'event management service'.
- Whether organizing cricket matches by collecting money from franchisees, sponsors, and co-sponsors is chargeable to levy of Service Tax.
- Applicability of the decision of Tribunal in the case of Tiger Sports Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. CST, New Delhi.
- Determination of liability to service tax under the category of event management service.
- Whether the respondents provided event management service.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the respondents. The Revenue contended that the respondents organized cricket matches under the name of Aurangabad Premier League (APL) by collecting money from franchisees, sponsors, and co-sponsors, which should be subject to Service Tax. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, relying on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Tiger Sports Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. CST, New Delhi.

The Revenue argued that the respondents' activities, including offering franchiseeship, selecting players, conducting tournaments, and managing the overall event, constitute event management services liable to service tax. Conversely, the respondents claimed they organized the cricket matches independently, without requests from franchisees, and that business houses participated voluntarily by displaying advertisements and teams. They cited the Tiger Sports Marketing Pvt. Ltd. case to support their position.

The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the Finance Act related to event management services and event managers. It noted that the respondents organized the cricket tournament without specific requests from franchisees or co-sponsors, who only advertised during the event. Citing the Tiger Sports Marketing Pvt. Ltd. case, the Tribunal concluded that since the respondents did not provide event management services to sponsors but organized the event for themselves, no Service Tax liability arose. The Tribunal found no evidence that the respondents provided event management services at the request of franchisees or co-sponsors, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and disposal of cross objections.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, determining that the respondents did not provide event management services under the category of 'event management service,' as they organized the cricket matches independently without being engaged by franchisees or co-sponsors. The judgment highlighted the distinction between providing services to sponsors and organizing events for self-benefit, ultimately dismissing the appeal and disposing of cross objections.