The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore bench has held that the promotional activities provided by former Indian skipper Anil Kumblein carrying advertising, promotional activity, team endorsement provided byM/s. RCSPL/franchisee/co-sponsors shall not be treated as “Business Auxilliary Services” and therefore, no service tax can be imposed on the same.
The department held that the appellant had provided the services of promotion or marketing of goods/services by engaging himself in carrying advertising, promotional activity, and team endorsement provided by M/s. RCSPL/franchisee/co-sponsors and hence, the same was taxable in terms of Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994 and demanded service tax of Rs. 27,65,676/- for the period 2009-10 and Rs. 21,41,105/- for the period 2008-09, apart from interest under Section 75 and penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The Tribunal bench comprising Mr. P. Anjani Kumar, Technical Member, and Mr. P. Dinesha, Judicial Member observed that “the issue is no more res Integra as the very same issue was considered by the learned Kolkata Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Sourav Ganguly Vs. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Kolkata vide Final Order No. 75660/2020 dated 14/12/2020 reported in 2020 SCC OnLine CESTAT 378 wherein, the issue has been decided in favor of a similarly placed taxpayer. The learned Kolkata Bench has elaborately considered the relevant provisions as well as orders of various Benches of CESTAT and also that of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners’ Association Vs. Union of India – 2009 (14) S.T.R. 289 (Bom.) wherein it has been held that the activity of the appellant therein could not be subjected to levy of service tax under Business Auxiliary Service prior to July 1 st, 2010. Said order of learned Kolkata Bench applies to this case in all forces since one of us [namely Member (Technical) is also a party to it]. Following the ratio of the learned Kolkata Bench, therefore, we hold that there is no liability on the appellant and hence, demands raised for both the periods cannot sustain.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
