9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Appellant has shown the income under the category of income from sponsorship from sports associations . As per Rule 2(1)(d)(vii), Service Tax on the amount sponsored is liable to discharged by the person who sponsors the programme, under reverse charge mechanism. Thus, in respect of sponsorship service, the liability is not on the Appellant. Consequently, the demand of Service Tax from the Appellant under sponsorship service is not sustainable. Levy of service tax - Business auxiliary services - scope of SCN - HELD THAT:- In the Order-in-Original, the ld. adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of Service Tax under the category of business auxiliary service, which was not there in the Show Cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions within India and abroad, including sponsorship to rights for the national teams controlled and played under the banner of such national associations. 1.1. During the course of audit of accounts of the Appellant and scrutiny of their Profit and Loss Account, S.T-3 Returns, bills and receipt particulars for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12, it was gathered that the Appellant had been showing income under the head income from sponsorship from sports associations amounting to Rs.89,74,440/- for the period 2010-11 and Rs.91,09,526/- for the period 2011-12. The audit took the view that the said income received by the Appellant is liable to Service Tax. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 05.06.2014 was issued to the Appellant demanding Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the category of business auxiliary service . Therefore, it is contended that the ld. adjudicating authority has traversed beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice and confirmed a demand which was not there in the Show Cause Notice. Accordingly, the Appellant contends that the demand confirmed in the Order-in-Original and upheld vide the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable. 3.1. The Appellant further submits that the said income was received from the sports associations and as per Section 2(1)(d)(vii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, Service Tax in respect of sponsorship amount received by the Appellant is payable under reverse charge mechanism by the person who has provided the sponsorship. Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax under the category of business auxiliary service, which was not there in the Show Cause Notice. Thus, I find that the ld. adjudicating authority has gone beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice and confirmed a demand which was not raised in the Show Cause Notice. Accordingly, I hold that the demand confirmed in the Order-in-Original, which was upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, is not sustainable as the Show Cause Notice has not specified the Service Tax payable under any particular category of service. 8. Since the demand itself is not sustainable, the question of demanding interest and imposing penalties does not arise. 9. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
