The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order,...

The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that under a revenue-sharing agreement the appellant (A) did not lease the immovable premises but procured management services from the operator (B); the consideration received was not fixed rent but variable receipts linked to box-office revenue, and thus did not constitute renting of immovable property. Consequently A was the service recipient, not the service provider, and any service tax liability would lie on B. The Tribunal further found prior precedential authority dispositive and concluded the show-cause notices were without merit as applied, extinguishing the recovery, interest and penalty directed by the adjudicating authority.