2022 (12) TMI 1109 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - Business Support Services or not - business of exhibition of cinematographic films - sharing of Revenue - distinct entities rendering service in de-mutualized capacity on principal-to-principal basis - HELD THAT - The issue in dispute stands resolved by the decision of the Tribunal in M/S. RELIANCE MEDIAWORKS LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER, SERVICE TAX-VI, MUMBAI 2022 (4) TMI 253 - CESTAT MUMBAI where it was held that The agreement in the present appeal is almost the same as the agreement in other appeals that have been decided including that in INOX LEISURE LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD 2021 (10) TMI 893 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , where under similar situation, it was held that no service tax can be levied on the appellant under BSS. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Tax liability on revenue sharing arrangement in exhibition of cinematographic films.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the tax liability arising from a unique revenue-sharing arrangement in the exhibition of cinematographic films by M/s Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd. The tax authorities imposed a tax liability of &8377; 17,62,76,317/- on a value of &8377; 1,33,58,26,691/- for the period from 2014-15 to 2015-16 under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. This decision was based on the conclusion that the entities involved in the arrangement were distinct and operated on a 'principal-to-principal' basis, without acquiring the status of partners. Penalties were also imposed under sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, leading to the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai.

The appellant relied on a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Mediaworks Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai to support their position. The Tribunal's decision in the Reliance Mediaworks case was highlighted, where the Supreme Court had dismissed the Department's appeal against the Tribunal's decision. Additionally, circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs were referenced to argue that the screening of a movie is not a taxable service unless there is a rental arrangement between the distributor and the theater owner. The circulars clarified the distinction between 'Business Support Service' and 'Renting of immovable property for furtherance of business or commerce.'

Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to a decision in the case of Inox Leisure Ltd., where the order passed by the Commissioner was set aside after a detailed examination of similar issues. The Department's appeal against the Tribunal's decision in the Inox Leisure case was also dismissed by the Supreme Court, affirming the Tribunal's view. Based on the precedents and legal interpretations presented, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals in favor of M/s Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the tax liability issues arising from a revenue-sharing arrangement in the exhibition of cinematographic films, emphasizing legal interpretations, precedents, and circulars to support the appellant's position and ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on established legal principles and decisions.