9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1217 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - programme producers service - refund claim allowed on the ground that the service was taxable as commercial use or exploitation of an event service which was incorporated in FA, 1994 only w.e.f. 1st July 2010 and hence not liable to tax for the prior period - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai 2012 (11) TMI 526 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , where it was held that the CBEC circular 334/1/2010-TRU dated 26-2-2010 clarified the position as The proposed service now seeks to tax the amount received by the person or organization, who permits the recording and broadcasting of the event from the broadcaster, or any other person, who seeks to commercially exploit the event - refund justified - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Appeal against order setting aside rejection of refund claim - Interpretation of service tax on telecast rights for an event - Definition of 'programme producers service' under Finance Act, 1994 - Applicability of tax liability for commercial use or exploitation of an event service - Comparison with relevant case laws for determining tax liability Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case involves an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim by the Revenue. The appellant contested the order-in-appeal that set aside the rejection of a refund claim amounting to ?9,54,180 preferred by M/s E-Cube Management Pvt Ltd. The dispute revolves around the refund sought for service tax wrongly paid on the receipt of ?2,83,75,000 from M/s Sony Entertainment Television India Pvt Ltd for telecast rights of an event. 2. The critical aspect of the case lies in the interpretation of the service provided by M/s E-Cube Management Pvt Ltd. The original authority rejected the refund claim, deeming the service as 'programme producers' service taxable under section 65(105)(zzu) of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the first appellate authority allowed the refund claim, asserting that the service fell under "commercial use or exploitation of an event service," which was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994 only from 1st July 2010, thereby not subject to tax for the period prior to that date. 3. The crux of the matter revolves around the definition of 'programme producers service' as per section 65(86b) of the Finance Act, 1994, which defines a programme producer as "any person who produces a programme on behalf of another person." The circular no. 80/10/2004-ST dated 17th September 2004 further clarifies that any programme produced by a broadcaster would fall under this taxable service category, even if the programme is sold to the broadcaster. 4. To determine the tax liability concerning the commercial use or exploitation of an event service, the counsel for the respondent relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai [2015 (38) STR 811 (Tri.-Mumbai)]. This case highlighted the clarification provided in CBEC circular 334/1/2010-TRU dated 26-2-2010, emphasizing services related to permitting commercial use or exploitation of events organized by individuals or organizations. 5. The comparison with relevant case laws such as Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. CST 2009 (7) STR 384 (T) and the Indian National Ship-owners' Association case indicated that the introduction of a new entry for taxing commercial use or exploitation of events from 1-7-2010 onwards implied no tax liability existed for such services before that date. The Tribunal's decision in the present case aligned with the principles established in these precedents, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the judgment upholds the decision to allow the refund claim by considering the nature of the service provided by M/s E-Cube Management Pvt Ltd and the relevant tax provisions applicable during the period in question.
|
