2013 (7) TMI 295 - AT - Service Tax

Providing infrastructure facility to BCCI - Promotion of cricket or giving the cricket stadium for conducting cricket matches business support services & infrastructural support services - Section 65(104c) - Held that - There is no evidence led by the Revenue to show that the services have been rendered in relation to business or commerce - Section has to be understood and construed by following the principles of ejusdem generies - Promotion of cricket or giving the cricket stadium for conducting cricket matches the transaction involved in the present case is not similar to any of the activities specified in the section. - Prima facie case is in favor of assessee - stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of services provided by the appellant to BCCI under 'Business Support Services' for Service Tax imposition.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the classification of services provided by the appellant, a cricket association, to BCCI under the category of 'Business Support Services' for the purpose of imposing Service Tax. The appellant contended that the amounts received from BCCI were grants/subsidies for promoting cricket within the region and not for providing services, thus exempt from Service Tax. The department argued that the infrastructure support provided by the appellant to BCCI falls under 'Business Support Services' as per Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994. The demands made on the appellant amounted to significant sums, leading to the appeals and stay applications against the Orders-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Nagpur.

The appellant emphasized that their affiliation with BCCI entailed receiving grants/subsidies for promoting cricket and infrastructure development, not for commercial services. They highlighted precedents where similar proceedings against other cricket associations were dropped, indicating inconsistencies in classification. The appellant also cited a Supreme Court ruling emphasizing the non-commercial nature of sports organizations like BCCI/CAB, which are primarily focused on promoting and popularizing sports rather than engaging in commercial activities. Additionally, they pointed out instances where demands for Service Tax were dropped on similar transactions involving cricket associations, further challenging the classification under 'Business Support Services.'

The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner (AR), reiterated the adjudicating authority's findings, asserting that the infrastructure support provided by the appellant to BCCI falls under 'Business Support Services.' They argued that the present case's facts differed from previous decisions by authorities in Ahmedabad and Pune, justifying the classification and imposition of Service Tax.

After careful consideration of both sides' submissions, the Tribunal analyzed the definition of 'Business Support Services' under Section 65(104c) and the specific activities covered under it. The Tribunal noted that the services provided by the appellant, such as promoting cricket and providing stadiums for matches, did not align with the activities specified under 'Business Support Services.' Moreover, there was a lack of evidence demonstrating that the services were rendered in relation to business or commerce. Consequently, the Tribunal was inclined to grant a stay, waiving the pre-deposit of dues adjudged against the appellant and staying the recovery during the appeals' pendency. Additionally, due to the substantial revenue involved, the Tribunal granted an early hearing of the appeals to expedite the resolution process.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the nuanced interpretation of 'Business Support Services' concerning the services provided by a cricket association to BCCI, highlighting the non-commercial nature of sports organizations and the specific criteria for classifying services under the relevant tax provisions.