Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Kingfisher Airlines Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai I on 28 May, 2014

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. I
Appeal No. ST/52/12
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 25/STC-1/SKS/11-12 dated 27.120.2011 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax I, Mumbai.)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President
Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
==========================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

========================================================== Kingfisher Airlines Ltd  Appellant (Represented by: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Advocate) Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai I Respondent (Represented by: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, Additional Commissioner (AR)) CORAM:

Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 28.05.2014 Date of Decision: 28.05.2014 ORDER NO..
Per: S.S. Kang
1. Heard both sides.
2. Appellant filed the appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand is confirmed on the ground that the appellant provided sponsorship service.
3. The case of the Revenue is that the appellant had received sponsorship service from M/s BCCI and is liable to service tax. The sponsorship is in respect of cricket matches conducted by the Indian Premier League.
4. We find that this issue is now settled by the decision of Hero Hondo Motors Ltd vs CST reported in 2013 (32) STR 371 whereby the Tribunal held that the sponsorship of sports events are exempted from the taxable service.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

(Dictated in Court.) (P.S. Pruthi) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President rk 2