1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Central Excise App. No.01 of 2023
1. Union of India, represented by the Commissioner of Central Excise,
CGST, CGST Bhawan, 1 Floor, Mantribari Road, Netaji Chowmuhani,
Agartala, Tripura West-799001.
2. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, CGST, CGST Bhawan, 1
Floor, Mantribari Road, Netaji Chowmuhani, Agartala, Tripura West-
799001.
Appellants(s)
….
Versus
M/S Tripura Cricket Association, Post Office. Chowmuhani, P.O.-
Agartala, P.S.- West Agartala, District- West Tripura, Pin-799001.
Respondent(s)
….
For the appellants(s) : Mr. Paramartha Datta, Advocate
For the respondent (s) : Mr. Nihar Dasgupta, Advocate
Mr. T.K. Deb, Advocate
Date of hearing : 01.05.2024
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 31.07.2024
Whether fit for reporting : Yes
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON’BLE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(Arindam Lodh, J.)
This is an appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise
Act, 1944, against the impugned final Order No. 75129/2023, dated
02.03.2023 passed by the Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
( CESTAT , for short), Kolkata in Appeal No.75752 of 2022.
„ ‟
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent, M/S Tripura
Cricket Association is a holder of Service Tax Registration
No.AABAT1839LSD001 under the categ
ory of “Club or Association
Service, Rent-a-Cab Operation Service, Sponsorship Service and Work
Contract Service . The respondent/TCA is affiliated to the Board for Control
”
2
of Cricket in India ( BCCI , for short) and received grant/subsidy including
„ ‟
Service Tax from BCCI in the nature such as TV Rights subsidy,
Tournament receipts, IPL subsidy, player expenses, reimbursement and
subsidy for International/Domestic matches etc. During the period 2011-12
to 2013-14, the respondent had received grant or subsidy amounting to
Rs.68,86,52,000/-(Rupees Sixty eight crore eighty six lakh fifty two
thousand) from BCCI for the promotion of the game of cricket in Tripura, on
which, Service Tax amounting to Rs.7,73,72,374/-(Rupees Seven crore
seventy three lakh seventy two thousand three hundred seventy four) had
been deposited to the Government Exchequer (Service Tax Head).
3. On 15.07.2015, i.e. after a little over one year from the date of
depositing the Service Tax, the respondents realized that the amount was
mistakenly paid and thereafter, filed a refund claim for the aforementioned
amount before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Agartala. The
Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 12.11.2015, rejected
the refund claim as barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central
Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Being
aggrieved with the said order dated 12.11.2015, the respondent filed an
appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise &
Service Tax, Guwahati, which vide Order-in-Appeal dated 08.04.2016
rejected the refund claim and upheld the Order-in-Original. On an appeal
filed by the respondent before the CESTAT, Kolkata, the Tribunal vide order
dated 20.07.2017, set aside the said Order-in-Appeal dated 08.04.2016 and
remitted the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner
(Appeals), Guwahati on fresh consideration of the case held that the instant
3
appeal was identical with the case of Vidarbha Cricket Association Vs.
Commissioner of C. Ex., reported in 2015 (38) S.T.R. 99 (Tri-Mumbai)
which was pending before the Apex Court and decided to transfer the case to
Call Book till attainment of the finality of the aforesaid case, following
which the respondent preferred a writ petition before this Court. This Court
vide order dated 26.04.2018, directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass
proper order. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed a miscellaneous order
dated 20.06.2018 transferring the case to Call Book instead of passing a
denovo adjudication order as directed by the Tribunal vide order dated
20.07.2017. The respondent again approached the Tribunal, and vide order
dated 18.09.2018, the learned Tribunal directed the respondent to agitate the
matter before this Court. Finally, this Court vide order dated 22.02.2022 in
Central Excise Appeal No.03 of 2019 directed the learned Commissioner
(Appeals) to re-call the case from the Call Book and to pass an appropriate
order within a period of 2(two) months. As per the direction of this Court, the
learned Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order dated 03.08.2022, rejecting
the refund claim on the ground that the respondent had provided taxable
service of “Business Support Service” to the BCCI and hence the Service
Tax paid was proper disentitling the respondent to get refund. Being
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 03.08.2022, the respondent
preferred an appeal before the learned Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata. The
learned Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata had passed the final order dated
02.03.2023 allowing the refund to the respondent. The said order may be
reproduced hereunder, for convenience:
5. We find that the findings of the order of the Tribunal in
“
the case of Vidarbha Cricket Association cited above, is
4
squarely applicable in the present case. In fact Vidarbha
Cricket Association has organized some cricket matchers for
BCCI, whereas TCA has never organized any cricket match
for BCCI or rendered any taxable service to BCCI. In the
Order- in-Appeal dated 22.02.2022, Commissioner (Appeals)
has claimed that the appellants has rendered "Business
Support Service" to BCCI. When they have not organized any
cricket match, there is no scope for providing ""Business
Support Service" to BCCI. Accordingly, we hold that the
appellants has not rendered any service to BCCI, which are
liable to service tax during the relevant period.
6. In the case of Vidarbha Cricket Association cited above, it
has been held that where no service had been provided, no tax
was payable and the amount paid erroneously in such cases
has to be considered as deposit to the Government Account in
respect of which the provision of time bar as provided under
Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section
83 of the Finance Act, 1994, does not apply. The same view
has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura also in
their order dated 03.08.2022.
7. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order-in-
appeal and hold that the appellants is eligible for refund of
Rs.7,73,72,374/ as the time limit prescribed under Section
11B read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, is not
applicable in this case.
8. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the
appellants is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
”
4. On the aforementioned background of facts, we have heard Mr.
Paramartha Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr.
Mr. Nihar Dasgupta and Mr. TK Deb, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/TCA.
5
5. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
5.1 It is contended by Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the appellants
that the Hon'ble CESTAT had failed to decide the issue regarding the huge
amount being called subsidy/subventions received from the BCCI by the
TCA as consideration for the service tax provided by the respondent to the
BCCI which is liable to Service Tax under the category of 'Business Support
Service', and as such, it is liable to be set aside. Mr. Datta, learned counsel
has further contended that the Hon'ble CESTAT also failed to understand
that the fact of the Vidarbha Cricket Association case and the fact of the
instant case is different as in the instant case the respondent/TCA have
themselves availed the benefit of self assessment under Section 70 of the
Finance Act, 1994 and paid the amount of Rs.7,73,72,374/- as service tax
under the category, Club or Association Service' which is now under the
claim of refund. No demand whatsoever was raised on the assessee i.e. TCA.
Hence, the decision of the Hon'ble CESTAT that judgment passed in the case
of Vidarbha Cricket Association(supra) was similar to the instant case is
wrong and bad in law.
5.2. The next argument of Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the
appellants is that the Hon'ble CESTAT did not consider the fact that a Trust
or an Association, registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act
does not construe its exemption from the liability of Service Tax but it is
required to be gratified and substantiated by engaging charitable activities
which the respondent/TCA, in the instant case has not done as the BCCI is
commercially exploiting the game of cricket and generating revenue and a
huge part of the revenue are being distributed amongst the State Cricket
6
Associations including the respondent herein for the services they provided
to the BCCI.
5.3. Further submission of Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the
appellants is that the learned CESTAT did not consider the balance sheets
submitted by the respondent/TCA at the adjudication proceeding whereas it
can be seen that the respondent organized the BCCI sponsored Ranji Trophy
Tournaments during the material period i.e. 2011-12 to 2013-14 and incurred
crores of rupees for conducting the matches on behalf of the BCCI. The
BCCI provided grants/subsidies to the respondent in the name of "TV
Subvention", "IPL, Subvention", "Media Rights Income and IPL Franchise
Consideration" which are the source of its income. Hence, the learned
CESTAT failed to consider that the amount received by the respondent from
the BCCI is entirely for provision of service to BCCI.
5.4. Next, the learned CESTAT did not consider that the respondent
in this case despite being registered under multiple categories of services
such as 'Rent-a-Cab Service', 'Manpower Recruitment Service', 'Supply
Agency Service', 'Sponsorship Service', 'Work Contract Service' etc. had paid
the entire amount of Service Tax under Club or Association Service only
„ ‟
and for other services the respondent did not bother to pay at all. The
respondent did not discharge the service tax liability in respect of all the
services provided by them under the respective accounting codes by
separately working out their service wise service tax liabilities.
6. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/TCA
6.1 On the other hand, Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the
respondent/TCA submits that the appellants raised a new ground in the
7
instant appeal, which was not in the original proceedings that the
payment/grant received from the BCCI was against rendition of service by
the respondent covered Business Support Service as defined under
under “ ”
Section 65(104c) read with Section 65(101) zzzq of the Finance Act, 1994.
But, it is the plea of the respondent/TCA that the appellants have failed to
specify/identify as regards the kinds of service provided by the respondent.
In absence of identification of service allocation of business is just to deprive
the respondent of a legitimate refund.
6.2 It is submitted that it was under erroneous impression that the
respondent/TCA deposited the amount with the appellate authority. To say it
otherwise, it was the mistake which they realized later on, forcing them to
claim refund.
6.3 Learned CESTAT has correctly held that TCA has not
organized any IPL test match or any other international cricket match, and
the TCA neither realized/procured any fees/funds nor generated funds
through sale of tickets or in any other manner from the viewers/other
organization or person during the course of local matches, including very few
Ranji matches organized by them or during the course of any activity
undertaken by them.
6.4 The respondent/TCA do not provide any service to the BCCI
against which payment of Rs.68,86,52,000.00/- was received, which was a
pure grant. When TCA had not organized any cricket match, or any such
Business Support Service to BCCI.
events, there is no scope for providing „ ‟
In furtherance thereof, it is submitted that re-appreciation of facts as
discussed and findings thereon by learned CESTAT, the first appellate
8
authority, may not be interfered with. In support of this submission, learned
counsel for the respondent has relied upon the case of Harjeet Singh v.
Amrik Singh [(2005) 12 SCC 270] and the case of H.P. Pyarejan v.
Dasappa [(2006) 2 SCC 496].
6.5 It is submitted that Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and
Service Taxes Division, Agartala most illegally and arbitrarily rejected the
claim of refund made by the respondent/TCA holding that the refund claimed
is barred by law and limitation under order dated 12.04.2015 which was
interfered with by learned CESTAT in the appeal and the order passed by the
Commissioner was set aside.
7. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW.
7.1 While admitting the statutory appeal under Section 35G of the
Central Excise Act, 1994 against the final order No.75129/2023, dated
02.03.2023, passed by learned Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal ( CESTAT , for short), Kolkata in Appeal No.75752 of 2022, this
„ ‟
Court formulated the following substantial questions of law:-
(i) Whether, the impugned judgment passed by the learned
“
CESTAT is perverse as it has not considered the documentary
evidence, i.e. Balance Sheet and invoices on record while
proceeding to hold that the appellants/respondent herein has
not rendered any service to the BCCI which are liable to service
tax during the relevant period?
(ii) Whether, the learned CESTAT has failed to appreciate that
the services provided by the respondent by way of extending
infrastructural support to BCCI are in the nature of taxable
services under the category of 'Business Support Service' as
defined under Section 65 (104c) read with Section 65 (101) zzzq
of the Finance Act, 1994?
9
(iii) Whether, the learned CESTAT has wrongly relied upon the
case of Vidarbha Cricket Association reported in 2015 (38) STR
99 (Tri-
Mumbai) rendered by the learned CESTAT, Mumbai?”
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 At the outset, we may deal with the findings of learned
CESTAT for both gravity and convenience. In the order, learned CESTAT
held that there was no evidence on record to show that the respondent/TCA
rendered any service specially the club/association service to the BCCI.
Learned CESTAT found that respondent/TCA paid service tax under
category of club or association service. Later on, it was realized that they
erroneously paid the service tax. After perusal of the decision of the tribunal
in the case of Vidarbha Cricket Association(supra), the Vidarbha Cricket
Association also did not organize any international cricket matches or
rendered any taxable service to BCCI. Having realized their mistake that
service tax was not payable on the amount received as subsidy/grant from
BCCI, the respondent/TCA claimed refund of the said amount as service tax.
On consideration of evidence and materials on record, learned CESTAT
finally held that the facts and the issues raised by respondent/TCA are
squarely similar and identical to the facts and the issues raised in the case of
Vidarbha Cricket Association(supra).
8.2 It was further held that the principles laid down by learned
CESTAT (Tri-Mumbai) are squarely applicable in the present case. Learned
CESTAT did not find any material to come to a finding that TCA had
organized any cricket match for BCCI or rendered any taxable service to
BCCI. Ultimately, learned CESTAT held that since respondent/TCA had not
no tax was payable and the amount paid
provided any taxable service, “
10
erroneously in such cases has to be considered as deposit to the Government
Account in respect of which the provision of time bar as provided under
Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the
Finance Act, 1994, does not apply
”.
8.3 Learned CESTAT while allowing the appeal preferred by the
respondent/TCA held that:-
(a) Respondent/TCA was entitled to a consequential relief.
(b) The appellants herein are liable to pay interest on the above amount in
accordance with law.
Accordingly, learned CESTAT set aside the impugned order-in-
appeal and held that the respondent/TCA was eligible for refund of
Rs.7,73,72,374/-.
9 Keeping in view the above findings, we are to decide the
substantial questions of law formulated herein above. The first substantial
question of law to be dealt with is whether the findings arrived at and the
impugned judgment passed by learned CESTAT is perverse.
9.1 We have perused the records meticulously. In the considered
view of this court, raising of invoice account could have made it susceptible
to tax. Therefore, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants strongly relied
upon the invoice No.TCA/AGT/13-14/02 dated 30.12.2013. From bare
perusal of the said invoice, it becomes apparent that the respondent/TCA had
informed the BCCI as regards the amount due to the TCA in view of the
th
resolution passed by BCCI AGM held on 29 September, 2013 out of; (i)
Media Rights income (ii) Franchise Consideration-IPL 2013.
11
9.2 However, on minute scrutiny of the materials on record, in no
way it can be said that the TCA was supposed to make those payments
mentioned in the invoice in lieu of any service rendered. Learned counsel for
the appellants further relied upon a cheque payment advice wherein it was
found that BCCI had paid a sum of Rs.359,408,179/-(Thirty five crore ninety
four lakh eight thousand one hundred seventy nine only) towards amount due
to Association as per AGM resolution out of Media Rights income and IPL
franchise consideration for IPL 2013. From the aforesaid invoice dated
30.12.2013 and the cheque payment advice dated 10.01.2014, it becomes
aptly clear that the respondent/TCA had received grants, or in other words it
is legitimate share out of the income of the BCCI from several heads and not
any payment on account of services rendered by it to BCCI. The balance
sheet annexed to the Memo. of Appeal also does not reveal such a position in
any manner. BCCI provides grants/subsidies to the TCA in the name of
Media Rights income or IPL Franchise Consideration as per the terms of the
BCCI resolution.
10. Reliance is placed upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Govind Saran Ganga Saran Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax & Ors.,
reported in 1985 (Supp) SCC 205. The components which enter into the
concept of tax are reiterated at paragraph 6 of the report which is quoted
hereinunder:
“6. The components which enter into the concept of a tax are well
known. The first is the character of the imposition known by its nature
which prescribes the taxable event attracting the levy, the second is a
clear indication of the person on whom the levy is imposed and who is
obliged to pay the tax, the third is the rate at which the tax is imposed,
and the fourth is the measure or value to which the rate will be applied
for computing the tax liability. If those components are not clearly and
definitely ascertainable, it is difficult to say that the levy exists in point
of law. Any uncertainty or vagueness in the legislative scheme defining
any of those components of the levy will be fatal to its validity."
12
10.1 In the present case, the first ingredient i.e. the taxable event
attracting the levy i.e. the service tax is absent. The deposit of service tax
was made under mistaken id
ea about the petitioner‟s liability to pay service
tax though there was no service as such provided in favour of the BCCI as is
evident from the findings of the learned CESTAT and the scrutiny of the
records.
10.2 The TCA had received grants as a legitimate share out of the
income of the BCCI from several heads as per the AGM Resolution of the
BCCI such as Media Rights Income and IPL Franchise consideration though
no such payment was made on account of services rendered by it to the
BCCI. If there was no taxable event attracting the levy there was no liability
upon the person on whom such a levy is being sought to be imposed by the
revenue under the „Business Support Service‟ as per Section 65(104c) read
with Section 65(101) zzzq of the Finance Act, 1994.
10.3 The exigibility of the service tax upon the petitioner, under the
„Business Support Service” has later been dealt with, in answer to the second
substantial question of law. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be
held that the TCA had rendered such services to the BCCI during the
relevant period in lieu whereof it had paid an amount of Rs. 7,73,72,374/- as
Service Tax with the revenue. Mere deposit of such amount under an
erroneous impression, therefore, do not lead to imposition or realization of
levy of service tax in the absence of taxable event, in the light of the above
principle enunciated by the Apex Court. As such, the first substantial
question of law formulated by this Court is answered in negative and is
13
decided against the appellants since we are unable to find any material to
hold that the findings of the learned CESTAT were not based on evidence.
11. Next, dealing with the second substantial question of law, we
provided
may reproduce the definition of „Business Support Service‟ as
under Section 65(104c) read with Section 65(101) zzzq of the Finance Act,
1994, which is as follows:
“to any person, by any other person, through a business entity
or otherwise, under a contract for promotion or marketing of a
brand of goods, service, event or endorsement of name,
including a trade name, logo or house mark of a business entity
by appearing in advertisement and promotional event or
carrying out any promotional activity for such goods, service or
event.”
Such payments are not in lieu of rendition of service to be
covered under
“Business support Service” as per Section 65(104c) read with
Section 65(101) zzzq of the Act of 1994 under which the revenue has made it
liable for service tax.
11.1 Before we delve into the said substantial question of law, we
may visit to the decision rendered in Vidarbha Cricket Association(supra).
The learned CESTAT(tri-Mumbai) held that payment/grant received by State
Board .
from the BCCI are not against providing of any „taxable service‟
Furthermore, it was held that profit earned by the BCCI from commercial
events like IPL, One-day International Cricket matches used to be shared
with the affiliated State Boards in a fixed formula basis for the
promotion/development of the game of cricket, irrespective of any
participation by the State Boards in organizing such events or not. Thus, the
principle laid down in the case of Vidarbha Cricket Association(supra) is
14
very much relevant to bring home the point that donation/grant to the State
Board made by the BCCI are not taxable. Again, similar view has been
expressed by learned CESTAT, Ahmedabad while dealing with the case of
Commissioner of C. EX. & S.T vs Saurashtra Cricket Association, 2023
(72) G.S.T.L. 93 (Tri.-Ahmd). The said judgment being challenged, the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India on hearing the appeal preferred by the Tax
Authority endorsed the view taken by learned CESTAT and dismissed the
appeal.
11.2 We have already held that there is no material evidence to
suggest that the respondent/TCA had provided any service by way of
extending infrastructural support to BCCI to attract the definition of
. The objectives of grant of subsidy as evident
„Business Support Service‟
are-
from BCCI‟s resolution
(a) to promote the game of cricket in India;
“
(b) to arrange, organize, control and finance the visits of Indian
Cricket Team to other countries and visits of Cricket Teams of
other countries to India;
(c) to build, construct, maintain and repair various stadia and
other amenities;
(d) to help junior cricketers, needy cricketers, retiring
cricketers, players, umpires and other persons connected with
the game of cricket;
(e) creation of infrastructure.
”
11.3 Referring to the case of Vidarbha Cricket Association(supra),
learned CESTAT while dealing with the various aspects of Business
„
Support Services , discussed and held thus:-
‟
“5.5.3 The question is whether these activities
constitute Business Support services as defined in the law. As
per Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994 -
support services for business or commerce' means services
„
provided in relation to business or commerce and includes
15
evaluation of prospective customers, telemarketing, processing
of purchase orders and fulfilment services, information and
tracking of delivery schedules, managing distribution and
logistics, customer relationship management services,
accounting and processing of transactions, operational
assistance for marketing and processing of transactions,
operational assistance for marketing, formulation of customer
service and pricing policies, infrastructural support services
and other transaction processing.
Explanation - For the purposes of this clause, the expression
'infrastructural support services' includes providing office along
with office utilities, lounge, reception with competent personnel
to handle matches, secretarial services, internet and telecom
facilities, pantry and security.
From the above definition, it is evident that the support services
should be provided in relation to business or commerce. The
question is whether conducting cricket tournaments and
telecasting the same would constitute business or commerce.
5.5.4 A similar issue came up for consideration before the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal
(supra) and it was held as follows:-
An organization such as BCCI or CAB in the present
“……..
case which are indisputably devoted to the promotion of the
game of cricket, cannot be placed in the same scale as the
business organizations whose only intention is to make as large
a profit as can be made by telecasting the game. Whereas it can
be said that there is hardly any free speech element in the right
to telecast when it is asserted by the latter, it will be warped and
cussed view to take when the former claim the same right and
contend that in claiming the right to telecast the cricket matches
organized by them, they are asserting the right to make business
out of it. The sporting organizations such as BCCI/CAB which
are interested in promoting the sport or sports are under an
obligation to organize the sports events and can legitimately be
accused of failing in their to do so. The promotion of sports also
includes its popularization through all legitimate means. For
this purpose, they are duty bound to select the best means and
methods to reach the maximum number of listeners and viewers.
Since at present, radio or TV are the most efficacious methods,
16
thanks to technological development, the sports organizations
like BCCI/CAB will be neglecting their duty in not exploring the
said media and in not employing the best means available to
them to popularize the game. That while pursuing their
objective of popularizing the sports by selecting the best
available means of doing so, they incidentally earn some
revenue, will not convert either them into commercial
organizations or the right claimed by them to explore the said
means, into a commercial right or interest. It must be further
remembered that sporting organizations such as BCCI/CAB in
the present case, have not been established only to organize
sport events or to broadcast or telecast them. The organization
of sporting events is only a part of their various objects, as
pointed out earlier and even when they organize events, they are
primarily to educate the sportsmen, to promote and popularize
the sports and also to inform and entertain the viewers. The
organization of such events involve huge costs. Whatever
surplus is left after defraying all the expenses is ploughed back
to them in the organization itself. It will be taking a deliberately
distorted view of the right claimed by such organizations to
telecast the sporting event to call it an assertion of their
commercial right."
From the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it clearly
comes out that sports organizations are not business or
commercial organizations, conduct of sports or sporting events
and their broadcasting/telecasting is not assertion of
commercial rights. The ratio of the above judgment applies
squarely to the facts of the case before us. It thus clearly
emerges that, the service, if at all any, rendered by the
appellants is not in relation to any business or commerce and
therefore, there is no service tax liability on the said activity
under Section 65(104c) read with 65(105)(zzzq) of the Finance
Act, 1994.
5.5.5 From the records, it is seen that the very same activity was
examined by the Commissioner of Service Tax at Ahmedabad in
the case of Gujarat Cricket Association and Saurashtra Cricket
Association and by the Commissioner of Central Excise
(Appeals), Pune, in the case of Maharashtra Cricket Association
as to their taxability under 'event management service' and the
demands were dropped vide orders dated 24-9-2007, 27-3-2009
and 28-7-2006 respectively.
17
5.5.6 In the light of the above decisions, we hold that the
appellants is not liable to service tax under the category of BSS
and the service tax demands made in this regard in the
impugned orders are unsustainable in law and accordingly are
set aside.”
11.4 As we said earlier, from careful examination of the records
relied upon by the appellants, in the instant case, we find no material that the
respondent/TCA had provided any service to the BCCI out of their own
generation of income. Thus, the grants or the share received by the
respondent-
TCA from BCCI do not come within the purview of „Business
65(104c) read with Section
Support Service‟ as defined under Section
65(101) zzzq of the Finance Act, 1994. In view of this, the second substantial
question of law is also answered in negative and against the appellants.
12 Now, dealing with third substantial question of law as to
whether the learned CESTAT wrongly relied upon the case of Vidarbha
Cricket Association(supra) to decide the merits of the challenge by
respondent/TCA against the impugned order passed by the appellants.
12.1 At the cost of repetition, we have analysed in earlier paragraphs
that the facts of the instant case are squarely covered with the facts of the
Vidarbha Cricket Association(supra). In the case of Vidarbha Cricket
Association(supra), learned CESTAT held that Vidarbha Cricket
Association also had received their legitimate shares out of the income
generated by BCCI by way of conducting different cricket matches in and
outside the country. Similarly, in the instant case, respondent/TCA has also
received grants and its legitimate shares from BCCI for the
development/promotion of cricket in the State of Tripura. The Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India formulated a view on the decision taken by learned
18
CESTAT in the case of Saurashtra Cricket Association(supra) and
dismissed the appeal preferred by the Commissioner, C. Ex. & S.T., Rajkot.
The third substantial question of law is also decided against the appellants.
13. In the light of the above discussions and the reasons recorded
hereinabove, in our considered view, the appellants have failed to make out a
case to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned CESTAT.
14. Resultantly, the respondent/TCA is entitled to get refund of the
amount it deposited with the appellant.
Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.
(ARINDAM LODH, J) (APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ)
SAIKA
Digitally signed
by SAIKAT KAR
T K AR Date: 2024.08.07
17:38:47 +05'30'
Rohit