Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd vs Cst, Delhi Iii on 16 October, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III DATE OF HEARING : 16/10/2014. DATE OF DECISION : 16/10/2014. Service Tax Appeal No. 800 of 2012 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 96/BK/GGN/2012 dated 15/03/2012 passed by The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi III, Gurgaon.] For Approval and signature : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of : the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair : copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Department Authorities? M/s Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Versus CST, Delhi III Respondent
Appearance Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar and Shri Udit Jain, Advocates for the Appellant.
Shri Amresh Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 54097/2014 Dated : 16/10/2014 Per. Archana Wadhwa :-
After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant entered into a contract with an agreement with KPH Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. for sponsoring the cricket team Kings XI Punjab. On the said contractual consideration, a service tax of Rs. 37,08,000/- was collected by M/s KPH from the present appellant and deposited with the Central Government under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. There is no dispute about above factual position.
2. However, subsequently Revenue entertained a view that the agreement between the appellant and M/s KPH was falling under the category of sponsoring service and, as such, the tax liability fall on the appellant on reverse charge basis. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them for recovery of the said tax amount of Rs. 37,08,000/-. The said proceedings resulted in passing of an order by the original Adjudicating Authority confirming the tax liability alongwith interest and imposing penalties also. The order so passed, was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals), hence the present appeal.
3. For better appreciation, we reproduce the relevant paragraph from the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals):-
5.3 Although the amount of service tax has been paid by the appellant and deposited by KPH under the taxable head business auxiliary service. But in view of the instructions of CBEC No. 42/Comm (ST) dated 8th February 2008 sponsorship of a cricket team may not be outside the scope of sponsorship service and service tax is required to be paid by the appellant. As the service tax is paid the service tax for their own tax liability the appellant is required to pay service tax on the services rendered by them under sponsorship service which is independent tax. Case laws cited by appellant 2010 (18) STR 803 (Com. A) and 2009 (13) STR 421 (Tri. Ahmd.) does not support their case as in this case classification of services rendered has changed from business auxiliary services to independently classifiable services namely sponsorship ship.
4. As is seen from above, the payment of service tax in respect of the same service is not being disputed by the Revenue. However, their contention is that the sponsoring of the cricket team amounts to providing sponsoring service and as such the liability would fall upon the appellant. Commissioner (Appeals) has also held that sponsoring of a cricket team is not outside the scope of sponsorship service.
5. Apart from noting that the issue of sponsorship of cricket has been held to be not covered by the sponsorship service, by the Tribunal in the case of Hero Motocorp Limited vs. CST, Delhi reported in 2013 (32) S.T.R. 371 (Tri. Del.), which would not cast any obligation on the appellant to discharge service tax, we also note that the service tax on the same transaction already stands deposited by M/s KPH, under the category of Business Auxiliary Services. Demand of service tax in respect of the same transaction on the ground that the deposit of service tax was under a different category whereas a different category of service has been provided cannot be held to be justifiable.
6. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court.) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
4