2014 (12) TMI 667

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : Shri Amresh Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) JUDGEMENT Per. Archana Wadhwa :-  After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant entered into a contract with an agreement with KPH Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. for sponsoring the cricket team Kings XI Punjab. On the said contractual consideration, a service tax of Rs. 37,08,000/- was collected by M/s KPH from the present appellant a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... agraph from the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals):-             5.3 Although the amount of service tax has been paid by the appellant and deposited by KPH under the taxable head 'business auxiliary service'. But in view of the instructions of CBEC No. 42/Comm (ST) dated 8th February 2008 sponsorship of a cricket team may not be outside .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rvice and as such the liability would fall upon the appellant. Commissioner (Appeals) has also held that sponsoring of a cricket team is not outside the scope of sponsorship service. 5. 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 vs. CST, Delhi reported in 2013 (32) S.T. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X