Permanent copyright assignment and film screening in revenue-sharing arrangements were discussed as outside service tax, with extended limitation unavailable.

A permanent assignment of telecast and broadcasting rights in a cinematographic film is distinguished from a temporary transfer or permission to use copyright, so it falls outside taxable copyright service. Film screening and exhibition in a revenue-sharing arrangement is not, by itself, business auxiliary service; taxability was noted only in a fixed-rent theatre lease situation, which was not alleged, and the classification was therefore unsustainable. The extended limitation period requires suppression, misstatement, or deliberate evasion, and those ingredients were absent where the demand rested on records supplied by the assessee and the tax position was debatable. The commentary concludes that the demand could not be sustained on classification or limitation grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the transfer of telecast and broadcasting rights in a cinematographic film under a perpetual arrangement amounted to taxable copyright service; (ii) whether film distribution and exhibition activities were liable to service tax as business auxiliary service; and (iii) whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.

Issue (i): whether the transfer of telecast and broadcasting rights in a cinematographic film under a perpetual arrangement amounted to taxable copyright service.

Analysis: The arrangement with the advertising agency conveyed absolute and exclusive rights for telecast, worldwide satellite television broadcast, and allied broadcasting rights for a perpetual period. A permanent assignment of copyright falls outside the concept of temporary transfer or permitting the use or enjoyment of copyright that alone is taxed under the relevant charging provision. The Board's clarification also supports the distinction between temporary use and permanent transfer.

Conclusion: The demand under copyright service was not sustainable and the issue was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether film distribution and exhibition activities were liable to service tax as business auxiliary service.

Analysis: Screening of a movie in a revenue-sharing arrangement is not, by itself, a support service to the distributor or producer. The departmental circular clarifies that movie screening is not taxable except in a theatre lease arrangement with fixed rent, and no such fixed-rent leasing arrangement was alleged. Further, the show cause notice did not identify the specific limb of the business auxiliary service definition allegedly attracted, which rendered the classification unsustainable.

Conclusion: The demand under business auxiliary service was not sustainable and the issue was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.

Analysis: The taxability of the transactions was a matter of interpretation and had generated conflicting views and multiple departmental instructions. The demand was based on records furnished by the assessee, and there was no clear allegation or proof of wilful suppression, misstatement, or deliberate evasion. In these circumstances, the ingredients required for invoking the extended period were absent.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified and the issue was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand could not be sustained on either classification or limitation, and the adjudication order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A permanent assignment of copyright is not taxable as temporary transfer or permitting use of copyright, movie screening in a revenue-sharing arrangement is not business auxiliary service absent a fixed-rent theatre lease, and the extended limitation period cannot be invoked without suppression or wilful evasion.

---