9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lm distributors to obtain such copy rights under which the right to exhibit the films is transferred to the appellant, either temporarily or in perpetuity, depending upon the nature of the agreements between the parties. The perusal is sufficient to hold that the facts of the present appeal are identical. Perusal is sufficient to accept the contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant that the order under challenge in that case is verbatim to the order in appeal in the present case - The Hon ble Bench while adjudicating the said issue has held that Though, renting of immovable property is a declared service under section 66E of the Finance Act, then too under section 67(1) of the Finance Act, the value shall, in a case where the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13-14 FY 2014-15 Demand in dispute Rs.22,27,732/- Rs.7,25,709/- Rs.6,58,828/- Penalty imposed Penalty equal to 100% of demand confirmed for the period upto 07.04.2011 and Penalty equal to 50% ibid for the remaining period, under Section 78 of Chapter V of the Finance Act 1994; and Rs.10,000/- each under Section 77(1)(a) ibid and Section 77 (2) ibid. Rs.72,571/- Under Section 76 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994; and Rs.10,000/- each under Section 77 (1) (a) ibid and Section 77 (2) ibid. Rs.65,883/- under Section 76 of Chapter V of the Fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022 (3) TMI 1206 SC Order. viii. Five Vision Promoters v.CCE ST, Ghaziabad 2022 (3) TMI 52 CESTAT, Allahabad. ix. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Ors.-2017 (2) TMI 775 Delhi High Court x. Mormugao Port Trust v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Goa 2016 (11) TMI 520 CESTAT, Mumbai as affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in 2018 (10) TMI 1675- Supreme Court. xi. Old Word Hospitality v.CST, New Delhi 2017 (2) TMI 1176 CESTAT, New Delhi. 5. It is brought to the notice by the ld. Counsel for the appellant that in the case of Moti Talkies (supra) the order of Commissioner (Appeals) was verbatim as the present order in appeal. Ld. Counsel has accordingly p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant has not provided any service to the distributors nor the distributors have made any payment to the appellant as consideration for the alleged service. In fact, the appellant who has paid money to the distributors for the screening rights conferred upon the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) completely misread the agreements entered into between the appellant as an exhibitor of the films and the distributors to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant was providing the service of ―renting of immovable property . xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 23. The position in law does not change with effect from 1 July, 2012 because even under section 66B of the Finance Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
