9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis of the department s case is dispute on the classification made by the service provider M/s. K.P.H. Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. M/s. K.P.H. Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. has classified the service under Business Auxiliary Service and discharged the service tax and issued the invoice. Firstly, the classification of service cannot be disputed at the recipient end secondly, the classification of service maintained by the service provider M/s. K.P.H. Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. has been considered in judgment of M/S COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS CST, DELHI-III [ 2014 (12) TMI 667 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that Demand of service tax in respect of the same transaction on the ground that the deposit of service tax was under a different ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice according to which the service recipient is required to pay the service tax in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 therefore, the service tax under the head of Business Auxiliary Service by the service provider is incorrect and consequentially the appellant is not entitled for the cenvat credit. 03. Shri Anandodaya Mishra, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that since service provider has paid the service tax under Business Auxiliary Service and the same has not been challenged by the department neither classification can be disputed at the recipient end nor the cenvat can be denied on the charge that due to service classifiable under Sponsorship Service since the appellant is liable to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ket Pvt. Ltd. has been considered in judgment of COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD. reported at 2015 (38) STR 497 which is reproduced below:- 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 and deposited with the Central Government under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. There is no dispute about above factual position. 2 . However, subsequently Revenue entertained a view that the agreement between the appellant and M/s. KPH was falling under the category of sponsoring serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Service Tax in respect of the same service is not being disputed by the Revenue. However, their contention is that the sponsoring of the Cricket team amounts to providing sponsoring service 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 v. CST, Delhi reported in 2013 (32) S.T.R. 371 (Tri. - Del.), which would not cast any obligation on the appellant to discharge Service Tax, we also note that the Service Tax on the same transac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
