9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 87 - AT - Service TaxLevy of Service Tax - Renting of Immovable Property Service or not - whether the demand under renting of immovable property service as confirmed in the impugned Order-in-Appeal is proper? - HELD THAT - On going through the earlier order of the co-ordinate Bench in the appellant s own case M/S. PENINSULA HOTELS (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUNELVELI 2023 (6) TMI 414 - CESTAT CHENNAI relied upon by the Ld. Advocate wherein the Bench had followed an earlier order of the Chennai Bench in the case of GRAND ROYALE ENTERPRISES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-I CHENNAI 2018 (10) TMI 656 - CESTAT CHENNAI wherein it was held that the transaction between the licencee and the licensor therein was not one of renting of immovable property but a business transaction between the two since the consideration was not like a regular rent but depended on the annual performance and the profits generated. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and the one decided by the co-ordinate Bench for earlier periods and hence, the decision arrived at in the earlier order squarely covers the issue in the case on hand as well - the impugned order and the demands sustained under renting of immovable property service against the appellant cannot sustain. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
The issue involved in this case is whether the demand under 'renting of immovable property service' as confirmed in the impugned Order-in-Appeal is proper. Comprehensive Details: The appellant had entered into an agreement with M/s. GRT Hotels and Resorts Private Limited for providing 'Outdoor Catering Services' and 'Mandap Keeper Services'. The dispute period was from July 2011 to December 2011 and January 2012 to September 2012. The Revenue raised doubts that the License Fee paid by the lessee was akin to rent, making it liable to Service Tax under 'renting of immovable property service'. Show Cause Notices were issued demanding Service Tax, penalties, and interest. The appellant denied any liability under renting of immovable property service. However, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demands in the Show Cause Notices in Orders-in-Original dated 17.09.2013 and 04.10.2013. Appeals were filed before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) but were rejected in the common impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 26.08.2014, leading to the present appeals before the CESTAT Chennai. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant argued that a similar issue had been decided in the appellant's favor by the co-ordinate Chennai Bench of the CESTAT in a previous case. The Ld. Assistant Commissioner relied on the findings of the lower authorities. The main issue before the Tribunal was to determine the propriety of the demand under 'renting of immovable property service' as confirmed in the impugned Order-in-Appeal. The Tribunal referred to a previous order where it was held that the transaction between the licensee and licensor was a business transaction, not renting of immovable property, as the consideration was based on performance and profits. Since the facts of the current case were similar to the earlier decision, the Tribunal held that the demands under 'renting of immovable property service' could not be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential benefits as per law. (Order pronounced in the open court on 01. 02. 2024)
|
