9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant demanding the service tax from the appellant under renting of immovable property service alleging that by way of the agreements with the distributor appellant has rented its theater for screening films. The details are given below:- Show Cause Notices Dated 21.04.2014 Dated 22.04.2015 Dated 19.02.2016 Period of Dispute FY 2008-09 to 2012-13 FY 2013-14 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/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i. vii. Inox Leisure Ltd. v.CST, Hyderabad - 2021 (10) TMI 893 - CESTAT, Hyderabad as affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CST v.Inox Leisure Ltd. - 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) for confirming the demand of service tax under ―renting of immovable property‖ for the simple reason 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
