Brand Promotion by Cricket Player Pinal Rohit Shah as per Agreement with Mumbai Indians does not fall under Business Auxiliary Service: CESTAT [Read Order]

The Ahmedabad bench Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) have held that brand promotion by cricket player Pinal Rohit Shah as per agreement with the Mumbai Indians does not fall under Business Auxiliary Service.

Pinal Rohit Shah, the appellant is a cricket player and engaged in playing cricket in Indian Premier League for a team owned by M/s. Indiawin Sports Private Limited, Mumbai (ISPL for short) (formerly known as Rathipriya Trading Private Ltd). Under the agreement between ISPL and the appellant Shri Pinal Shah, the appellant received remuneration for playing cricket for ISPL.

The department stated that the appellant has provided the service of brand promotion which falls under the category of Business Auxiliary Service and the same is taxable under service tax. Therefore, the demand for service tax was raised. 

Shri Nandan S. Soni, counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant and submitted that as per the agreement for playing cricket on behalf of M/s. India win Sports Private Limited (ISPL) the same is for employment of the appellant with ISPL and the appellant received remuneration for the same.

Further submitted that the appellant is not engaged in the brand promotion of any Company. Therefore, as per the agreement for employment of the appellant with ISPL, it shall not attract service tax. On the other hand, Shri Vijay G Iyengar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) appeared for the Revenue to reiterate the findings of the impugned order.

The two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Mr C L Mahar, Technical Member observed that the total amount of remuneration received is towards engaging the appellant by ISPL to play cricket in India Premier League matches. In the case of Sourav Ganguly Vs. UOI & others – 2016 (7), it was held that the “arrangement between the owner Company and the cricket player is of employment hence, players are not directly involved in brand promotion of a brand owner. Therefore, the activity of the cricket player does not fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Services.”

The two-member bench comprising Mr Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Mr C L Mahar, Technical Member has held that the demand under Business Auxiliary Service does not sustain and set aside the impugned order. 

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates