2016 (8) TMI 1122 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax liability on the appellant under the category of sponsorship services - Held that - The issue is settled in favour of the assessee in Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. case 2014 (12) TMI 667 - CESTAT NEW DELHI wherein held apart from noting that the issue of sponsorship of Cricket has been held to be not covered by the sponsorship service, by the Tribunal in the case of Hero Motocorp Limited v. CST, Delhi reported (2013 (6) TMI 447 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ), which would not cast any obligation on the appellant to discharge Service Tax, we also note that the Service Tax on the same transaction already stands deposited by M/s. KPH, under the category of Business Auxiliary Services. Demand of Service Tax in respect of the same transaction on the ground that the deposit of Service Tax was under a different category whereas a different category of service has been provided cannot be held to be justifiable.

Summary

Issues involved:
Service tax liability on the appellant under the category of "sponsorship services."

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background: The appellant sponsored Kings XI Punjab Cricket Team through an agreement with KPH Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd., paying a predetermined amount. The department claimed the amount fell under sponsorship services, imposing a service tax liability.

2. Adjudication: The adjudicating authority upheld the department's claim, demanding tax, interest, and penalty. The appellant contested, citing a similar case involving Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd.

3. Legal Precedent: The Tribunal in the Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. case held that sponsoring a cricket team did not constitute sponsorship services, setting a legal precedent.

4. Appellate Tribunal's Decision: The Appellate Tribunal reviewed the facts, noting the identical issue's resolution in the Coca Cola case. They cited the Commissioner (Appeals) order emphasizing that sponsoring a cricket team did not fall under sponsorship services.

5. Legal Analysis: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the service tax liability did not apply based on the legal precedent set by the Coca Cola case. They highlighted that the service tax had already been paid under Business Auxiliary Services, making the additional tax demand unjustifiable.

6. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant based on the legal interpretation and precedent established in the Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. case.

This detailed analysis showcases the legal proceedings, arguments presented, legal precedents cited, and the final decision by the Appellate Tribunal in favor of the appellant based on established legal principles and precedents.