2018 (7) TMI 695 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - Letting out the studio for the purpose of film shooting - Whether classifiable under the category of Renting of immovable property service or under the category of Video Tape Production Service - Held that - The Tribunal in the appellant s own case M/S. AVM STUDIOS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI 2018 (4) TMI 1098 - CESTAT CHENNAI has analyzed the issue and arrived at the conclusion that the activity does not fall under the category of video tape production service - Further, the assessees are also discharging service tax on the said activity under renting of immovable property service with effect from 1.6.2007. Demand set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of service for taxation - Video Tape Production Service vs. Renting of immovable property service.
2. Liability to pay service tax for the period 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2007.
3. Dispute regarding demand, interest, and penalties.
4. Interpretation of previous Tribunal decision in the assessee's own case.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was the classification of the service provided by the assessees for taxation purposes. The department contended that for the period 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2007, the assessees should pay service tax under the category of Video Tape Production Service, while the assessees were discharging service tax under the category of renting of immovable property service from 1.6.2007. The Tribunal, referring to a previous decision in the assessee's own case, concluded that the activity did not fall under the category of video tape production service. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

2. The issue of liability to pay service tax for the period 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2007 was also addressed in this judgment. The department had issued a show cause notice proposing to demand service tax, interest, and penalties for this period. After due process, the original authority confirmed the demand and interest, although penalties were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case played a crucial role in resolving this issue, leading to the dismissal of the department's appeal and the allowance of the assessee's appeal.

3. Another aspect of the case involved a dispute regarding the demand, interest, and penalties imposed by the authorities. While the penalties were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), the demand and interest were confirmed. The Tribunal's analysis and decision in the assessee's previous case influenced the resolution of this dispute, resulting in the dismissal of the department's appeal and the allowance of the assessee's appeal.

4. The interpretation of the previous Tribunal decision in the assessee's own case was a key factor in this judgment. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the assessee in Final Order No. 43507/2017, which was cited during the proceedings. By analyzing and following the reasoning of the previous decision, the Tribunal in this case set aside the impugned order, allowed the assessee's appeal, dismissed the department's appeal, and disposed of the cross-objection filed by the assessee.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the critical issues addressed in the judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal interpretations and precedents.