Jurisprudentiol - Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Service Tax

Business Support Services - Promotion of cricket or giving cricket stadium for conducting cricket matches, which is transaction involved in present case - Prima facie appellants have made out a strong case in their favour - Stay granted: CESTAT

THE appellant is a member of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). From the income proceeds of BCCI, the members were given reimbursement under various categories such as, TV Rights subsidy, Tournament receipts, IPL subsidy players' expenses reimbursements and subsidy for international matches. These amounts are given to promote the game of cricket and also to undertake construction of infrastructure for playing cricket within the jurisdiction of the members.

The CCE & ST, Nagpur was of the view that the amounts received from BCCI by the appellant is for providing infrastructure support to BCCI for conducting tournaments and, therefore, the same is classifiable under the category of ‘Business Support Services'.

A Service Tax demand of more than Rs.21 crores was raised under two SCNs on the consideration received by the appellant during the period 2006-07 to 2009-10 and 2010-11. These notices also included service tax demands raised under the category of ‘Club or Association and Advertising Services', ‘Mandap Keeper Services', ‘Renting of Immovable Property Services' and "Sale of space or time for advertising'.

Income Tax

Whether enforcement of a debt being barred by limitation, ipso facto leads to conclusion that there is cessation or remission of liability - ruled against Revenue: HC

THE issues before the Court are - Whether enforcement of a debt being barred by limitation, ipso facto leads to the conclusion that there is cessation or remission of liability; Whether in order to attract the provisions of Section 41(1), there should be an irrevocable cession of liability without any possibility of the same being revived; Whether section 41(1) also includes the benefit obtained by an assessee by virtue of remission or cessation of a liability and Whether there can be a cession of liability in case, where the debt has been acknowledged by the assessee company, has already been accepted by the revenue. And the verdict goes against the Revenue.

Central Excise

CX - Denial of SSI benefit, not relating to rate of duty appeal against Tribunal's order lies to HC; Dismissing civil appeal only part appealed against gets merged; No penalty under Rules 25 or 26 if there is no mens rea : High Court

THE CESTAT had denied the benefit of SSI exemption under per Notification No.8/ 2001 to the assessee on the ground of using the brand name of another person. However the Tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalty on the Company as well as its directors.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements