Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (8) TMI 791

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ness houses as part of their attire are not promoting any business of the said companies. They are simply playing cricket and are wearing the attire as per the conditions described by the franchisers. Tribunal held the same in the case of SOURAV GANGULY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, KOLKATA (NOW COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS SERVICE TAX CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA SOUTH) [ 2020 (12) TMI 534 - CESTAT KOLKATA] and the same has been consistently followed by the Tribunal in PINAL ROHIT SHAH VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -VADODARA-II [ 2023 (6) TMI 956 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] and RAHUL DRAVID VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [ 2012 (12) TMI 114 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] where it was held that 'In the identical agreements, in respect of other players engaged .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he same transaction, the appellants are not liable to pay service tax again. The appeal is allowed. - HON BLE Mr. S. S. GARG , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE Mr. P. ANJANI KUMAR , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Gajendra Maheshwari , Advocate for the Appellant Shri Harish Kapoor , Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER : P. ANJANI KUMAR Shri Yuvraj Singh Bundhel, the appellant, assails the impugned order, dated 25.02.2014, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Chandigarh, consequent upon the proceedings initiated by the Revenue by issuing Show Cause Notice dated 10.09.2010. Revenue alleges that the appellant received consideration in terms of a contract with M/s KPH Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. has rendered the t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... w.e.f. 01.07.2010; when a specific service has been notified under the Statute, the same cannot be taxed before that under a different Heading. He relies on the following cases: Sourav Ganguly- 2016 (43) STR 482 (Cal.) and 2020- SCC-Online-CESTAT-378 Shriya Saran 2014 (36) STR 641 (Tri. Del.) 4. On the allegation of non-payment of service tax for the remuneration received for a reality show, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Department has not shown under which category the game show has been charged for service tax; M/s Rhiti had engaged the appellant for a reality show Chak De Bache for M/s INX Media Pvt. Ltd; M/s Rhiti have discharged the applicable service tax on the consideration received by them from M/s INX Media; th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m 504 CE, C CGT-Delhi-iii v. Piyush Chawla- ST/54359/2015 Dtd. 03.07.2018-Del. Tribunal. Karan Sharma v. C.C.E. S.T-Meerut-i- ST/59766/2013Dtd. 06.03.2018-All. Tribunal CCE ST vs. L. Balaji (Common Judgement for 48 Assesses)-ST/41245- 41246/2014-Chn. Tribunal. Ajitesh Kamlesh Argal v. C.C.E. S.T-ST No. 11229 of 2013 dtd. 03.04.2023-Ahd. Tribunal. Ishant Sharma v. C.C.E. S.T-ST No. 249 of 2016 dtd. 11.08.2023-Del. Tribunal. Comm. ST, Delhi v. Ms. Shriya Saran- [2014] 48 taxmann.com 209-Del. Tribunal. Comm. Of C.C.E., Goa v. Swapnil Asnodkar-2018(1) TMI 266 Dtd. 10.11.2017- Mum. Tribunal. Faiz Fazal v. C.C.E. Nagpur- ST/86456/14- Mum. Tribunal. Shri Harbhajan Singh Final Order No.60174/2024 dated 15.04.2024. 7. Coming to the other issues of s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... atrix has not paid service tax on behalf of the appellant. By mere paying the service tax liability under wrong head does not mean that service tax liability has not been discharged. The allegation of the revenue that service has been rendered by appellant but has not discharged the service tax liability is not sustainable as per Section 65(7) of the Finance Act, wherein the assessee means a person liable to pay service tax and includes his agent. In this case appellant has appointed M/s. Matrix as her agent to discharge her service tax liability on her behalf and same has been discharged by M/s. Matrix. 8. Learned Authorized Representative argues that there is no principal and agent relationship between the appellant and M/s Rhiti as there .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates