Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.61 seconds)Finance Act, 1999
The Secretary, Ministry Of Information ... vs Cricket Association Of Bengal & Anr on 9 February, 1995
5(ii). Without prejudice to the above, it is the contention of the Ld.
Counsel that the services cannot be classified under "Business support
service". As the definition of BSS includes all those activities which
relate to the marketing, sales and distribution of goods and services,
and the arrangement between the appellant-assessee and BCCI-IPL
cannot fall either under the „means‟ or „includes‟ portion of definition
as the nature of activities is very different. In alternate, it is his
submission that BCCI is not engaged in business and commerce,
therefore, the demand under the category of BSS is not sustainable.
BCCI is engaged in the promotion and control of cricket and not
engaged in the business or commerce to say that, he relied upon the
decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary,
4
5
Appeal No.ST/354/11,597,604/12,51089/14 & 50086/15
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting vs. Cricket Association of
Bengal-1995 (2) SCC 161 wherein it was held that BCCI is not a
commercial organization.
C.C.E. Chandigarh vs Punjab Cricket Association on 10 May, 2019
8. We also take note of the fact that BCCI is not commercial
organization and only organizing game of cricket. Therefore any
service rendered to BCCI-IPL is not in the nature of support of
business of BCCI. Therefore, on that ground also; no service tax is
payable by the appellant-assessee as held by this Tribunal in the case
of Rajasthan Cricket Association (supra) wherein this Tribunal has
observed as under:-
M/S The Cricket Club Of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai I on 6 June, 2012
In Cricket Club of India
v. Commissioner of Service Tax, reported in 2015 (40) S.T.R. 973 it
was held that mere money flow from one person to another cannot
be considered as a consideration for a service. The relevant
observations of the Tribunal in this regard are extracted below :
Sourav Ganguly vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 June, 2016
In the case of Sourav Ganguly (supra), Hon‟ble
Calcutta High Court has observed as under:
Mormugao Port Trust vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 9 June, 2016
6. We have gone through the agreement and find that the
agreement is in nature of Revenue sharing and the said issue has
been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Mormugao Port Trust
(supra) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:-
M/S Hero Honda Motors Ltd vs Cst, Delhi on 10 April, 2013
20. Ld. Counsel further submits that exclusion clause consists of the
phrase „in relation to‟ which has been interpreted to have very broad
and wide expression in the light of the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court
in the case of Doypack Systems Pvt.Ltd. vs. Union of India-1988 (36)
ELT 201 (SC) and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hero
Motocorp Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi-2013 (32) ELT STR 371 (Tri.-Del.) which
has been affirmed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court reported in 2016 (44)
STR J59 (SC).