9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch deals with copy rights related to 'Original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works' - it is found that the Copy Rights service rendered by the Appellant are related to 'Original Artistic Works' which are excluded from payment of service tax. Accordingly, the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.8,41,684/- is not sustainable. Even otherwise, there was no demand of service tax under the category of 'Copy Right Service' in the Notice. Hence, the demand of service tax of Rs.8,41,684/- confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable on this count also. Regarding the remaining demand confirmed in the impugned order, the Appellant stated that as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Lesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010 to March 2011. The Notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 20/08/2013, wherein Service Tax and Cess amounting to Rs. 91,23,642/- was confirmed along with interest and Rs. 79,68,379/- already paid by the Appellant was appropriated against the confirmed demand. Penalty was imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the Appellant filed the present appeal. 2. In their submissions, the Appellant stated that out of the confirmed demand of Rs.91,23,642/-, they have already paid Rs.79,68,379/- which has been appropriated in the impugned order. Thus, the present appeal deals with the remaining amount of Rs.11,55,263/- confirmed in the impugned order along with interest and penalty un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,83,647/-. However, actual property tax paid was Rs. 57,66,009/- Thus, Rs 82,362/- has also to be excluded on account of property tax. They also stated that there was a short adjustment of Rs.40,087/-. If we take all the above into account, there won't be any further liability of payment of service tax. When there is no liability of service tax, the question of interest payment and imposing penalty under section 76 of the Act does not arise. Accordingly, they prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 6. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. We observe that the Notice has demanded service tax of Rs. Rs.1,48,07,289/-,under the category of 'Rentin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y also stated that there was a short adjustment of Rs.40,087/-paid by them which has not been appropriated. If we take all the above into account, there won't be any further liability of payment of service tax. We observe that the claim of the Appellant on these counts needs to be verified by the adjudicating authority. For that purpose, the matter needs to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority. 10. In view of the above findings, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority with a specific direction to verify the claims made at (ii), (iii), and (iv) at Para 3 supra. The demand confirmed at (i) in Para 3 supra is set aside. Consequently, the interest and penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 is also s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
