9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeals. 2. One of the appeals is directed against a demand of Rs. 51,39,288/- (service tax + education cesses) for the period 2008-09 and the associated penalties determined by the Commissioner in adjudication of show-cause notice dt. 19/10/2009. The other appeal is against a similar demand of Rs. 50,05,937/- (service tax + education cesses) for the period 2009-10 and the connected penalties determined by the Commissioner in adjudication of show-cause notice dt. 22/10/2010. 3. On a perusal of the records, we note that the appellant as a player of cricket received fees from M/s. Royal Challengers Sports Pvt. Ltd. (Royal Challengers for short) for playing IPL (Indian Premier League) tournaments during the periods of dispute and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Commissioner has chose to go by Wikipedia and other materials, without referring to the contentions of the assessee, to reach the conclusion that the assessee rendered BAS and was, therefore, liable to pay service tax on the player fees collected from Royal Challengers. In his reply to the show-cause notices, the assessee took the stand that his activity in the tournament field did not attract service tax. He further submitted that cricket was a game of skill and dexterity and not a game of chance like lottery etc. It was submitted that the activity of playing such a game did not involve any taxable element. The assessee, in his replies to the show-cause notices, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is evident from the records of this case that the contentions raised by the assessee in his replies to the show-cause notices were not heeded by the adjudicating authority which chose to rely on Wikipedia and other materials without referring to the contentions of the assessee. It appears, to Wikipedia was elaborately referred to in the impugned order without putting the assessee on notice, which by all means amounts to violation of natural justice. Further, the case of department considered by the learned Commissioner mainly based on the MoUs executed by Royal Challengers with the owners of logo/mark/sign which were displayed by the cricketer on his uniform during the course of the tournaments, but no copy of any such MoU was supplied to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
