9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order No. A/30394/2019 dated 18.03.2019, most of the issues stands settled in favour of the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Limited company, was set up under Public Private Partnership initiative of the Government of Andhra Pradesh under the Companies Act in the year 2001 and commenced their commercial activities which are mainly in the nature of Food Court and Entertainment facility in July, 2003. Thereafter, the appellant company converted into a Private Limited company since 18.07.2012. The appellant is registered with the Service Tax Department under the category of sale of space or time for advertisement, renting of immovable properties, management, maintenance or repair service etc. During Audit, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties run by self); vi) Parking fee (w.e.f. 01.04.2013); vii) Sale of time and space for advertisement; 5. The demand raised vide impugned order is as follows:- S. No. Name of the activity Value as per the impugned order Service tax demanded at 12.36% (Rs.) Service tax paid Rs. Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Share of revenue from joint commercial activities 3,01,93,795 37,31,953 Nil Held not liable to service tax vide CESTAT's Final order No. A/30394/2019 dt. 18.03.2019 and order of Principal Bench of CESTAT at Delhi in the case of Ambience Hospitality Pvt. ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Delhi-IV - 2019 (21) GSTL 400 (Tri. Del.) 2 Rent from immovable property 49,82,795 6,15,873 Nil Value as in col. 3 is subject to admiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o any person, as the relationship between the parties is on principal to principal basis. Further, there is no service provider or service recipient relationship and the turnover in question is sale of goods. The Tribunal placed reliance on the precedent ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Ambience Hospitality Pvt. Limited vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Delhi-IV -2019 (21) GSTL 400 (Tri. Del.). 7. Learned counsel further urges that the next dispute relates to demand of Rs. 87,67,255/- under Rule 6(3)(i) is on the allegation of irregular availment of cenvat credit on common input services which are used for both taxable and exempt services. It is urged that no common input services were used by them for exempted and taxable services. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f immovable property. Learned Counsel submits that the appellant have paid admitted service tax under the head. The amount of Rs. 49,82,795/- is the municipal taxes which are admissible as deduction from the gross rent earned as per Notification No. 29/2012- ST dated 20.06.2012. Thus, the demand of Rs. 6,15,873/- is fit to be set aside. So far the demand for receipts from fun factory is concerned, the same is not taxable being in the nature of entertainment provided for which appellant have admittedly paid the state tax under the Entertainment Tax Act of the State. Further, this Tribunal have held in the preceding Final Order dated 01.01.2019 in the appellant's case that receipts under this head is not taxable. 10. So far the demand of ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... film produced by the producer, the original copyright holder, the arrangements and their respective service tax classification is tabulated as under: Type of arrangement Movie exhibited on whose account Service Tax Implication Principal-to Principal Basis Movie being exhibited by theatre owner or exhibitor on his account - i.e. The copyrights are temporarily transferred. Service tax under copyright service to be provided by distributor or sub-distributor or area distributor or producer etc. as the case may be Movie being exhibited on behalf of Distributor or Sub-Distributor or Area Distributor or Producer etc. - i.e. no copyrights are temporarily transferred. Service tax under Business Support Service/ Renting of Immovable Property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue is already adjudicated in favour of the appellant in the precedent decision of this Tribunal dated 01.01.2019 wherein the Tribunal held that receipts under this head are in the nature of receipt towards entertainment provided and the same is taxable under the State Entertainment Tax Act and hence not exigible to service tax. 13.3 So far the issue of parking receipts is concerned, it is demonstrated that the appellant had paid the admitted tax of Rs. 22,17,764/- against the demand of Rs. 12,62,642/-. Hence, we hold that the service tax demanded vide the impugned order is not disputed, is taxable and paid. Further, admitted tax is more than the assessed tax. 13.4 So far the demand of Rs. 87,67,255/- under Rule 6(3) is concerned, we take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
