Service tax in respect
of same transaction cannot be demanded again on ground that deposit of Service
tax was under different category whereas different category of service has been
provided
Coca Cola India Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Service Tax, Delhi III [2014-TIOL-2198-CESTAT-DEL]
Coca Cola India Pvt.
Ltd.(theAppellant) entered into an Agreement with KPH Dream
Cricket Pvt. Ltd. (KPH) for sponsoring the cricket team Kings XI
Punjab. On the said contractual consideration, a Service tax of Rs. 37,08,000/-
was collected by KPH from the Appellant, which was deposited with the
Central Government under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS).
Later on, the Revenue entertained a view that the Agreement
between the Appellant and KPH was falling under the category of ‘Sponsorship
Service’ and, as such, the tax liability falls on the Appellant under reverse
charge mechanism.
Notwithstanding that Service tax already stood paid by KPH,
proceedings were initiated against the Appellant for recovery of the said tax
amount of Rs.37,08,000/- which was further affirmed by the Adjudicating
Authority, confirming the demand with interest and penalty.
Being aggrieved, the
Appellant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Commissioner (Appeals). The
Hon’ble Commissioner (Appeals) also found the decision of the Adjudicating
Authority proper &legal and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the
Appellant.It was held by the Commissioner (Appeals) that such liability would
fall upon the Appellant and sponsoring of a cricket teamis not outside the
scope of sponsorship service.Thereafter, the Appellant filed an appeal
before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi.
The Hon’ble CESTAT,
Delhi relying upon the decision in the case of Hero Motocorp Limited
Vs. CST, Delhi [2013-TIOL-873-CESTAT-DEL]held that the demand of
Service tax in respect of the same transaction on which Service tax had already
been deposited, 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.
Accordingly, the order of the Adjudicating Authority was set
aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
(Bimal Jain,
FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons), Mobile: +91 9810604563, Email:
bimaljain@hotmail.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment