9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to show that there is an agreement to share profits and losses. Only the collections are shared after some deductions. If, for instance, the total expenses incurred by the appellant in running the theatre is much more than its collections from the movie, it will incur losses. The distributor has no responsibility to share the losses. The distributor gets its share of the net Box Office collections even though the collections may be small. Hence the nature of the agreement here is one in which the distributor gives permission to screen the movies and gets a consideration. The quantum of consideration is not a fixed amount but a share of collections. The distributor does not assume any business risks in screening the movies. Therefore, we find no evidence whatsoever in this arrangement of forming an unincorporated joint venture.' Since the Tribunal has already taken a view on this issue, there is no occasion to take a different view in this appeal which is on the self-same issue and is extension of the earlier proceedings. The Order-in-Appeal is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - HON BLE MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder:- 8. The appellant has three movie theatres in its mall to screen movies. It appointed M/s PVR Limited as Business Manager for operation and management of multiplexes through the PVR. The appellant entered into agreements with the distributors of films for temporary transfer of copyrights through assignment or licensing for exhibition of movies. The Net Box Office Collection (Gross revenue from sale of tickets minus some expenses like taxes) are, as per the agreements, shared between the distributors of the films and the appellant. The allegation in the show cause notice is that this arrangement has resulted in creation of an association of persons, i.e., an unincorporated joint venture and that the appellant was providing business support services in the form of infrastructural support and operational or administrative assistance to such joint a venture. The appellant s share of Net Box Office collections is the consideration received for such services which are in the nature of Business support services and service tax is proposed to be charged on the services. Learned Commissioner has, in the impugned order, confirmed the demand as such along with interest invoking extended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... films are exhibited by the Appellant on their own account under a theatre license granted to them by the Uttar Pradesh State Authorities and not on behalf of the Distributor. (v) Each member does not have an equal voice in controlling the project. (vi) The distributors do not control the screening of the film. The Distributor does not share the loss and risk. (vii) Intention of parties is not to create a new entity. (viii) When read as whole, the agreement, it emerges that the intention of the parties is that Appellant screens the films on its own account. (ix) The agreement is signed with a clear intention to screen the movie and not to either rent the theatre or create any partnership between the Parties. (x) Each member is not accountable to each other for their respective acts. (xi) Appellant and distributors do not act as principal and agent to one another, which is one of the features of a partnership/joint venture. (xii) Appellant does not act as an agent of the distributor while screening the film. (xiii) The conditions relating to cancellation of the show, unauthorized use of copying of film, loss or theft of the print etc. in the agreements with the distributors are in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Net Box Office collections, i.e. the proceeds of sales of tickets minus some expenses such as taxes are shared between the cinema owners and the distributors. The question as to whether the share of collections received by the cinema owners can be taxed has been decided in negative by this Tribunal in the case of Service Tax Appeal No.30488-30489 of 2016 in the case of Inox Leisure Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad and it has also been decided in the following other cases: (a) M/s. PVS Multiplex India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-l - 2017 (11) TMI-156-CESTAT Allahabad; (b) M/s. Moti Talkies vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-l 2020 (6) TMI 87 CESTAT New Delhi; (c) M/s. The Asian Art Printers (Sheila Theatre) vs. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-l - 2020 (12) TMI 1012 CESTAT New Delhi; (d) Shri Vinay Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Regal Theatre vs. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-l 2020 (11) TMI 436-CESTAT New Delhi; (e) M/s. Golcha Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-l 2020 )11) TMI 137 CESTAT New Delhi; and (f) Satyam Cineplexes Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-l 202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
