2017 (11) TMI 156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ervice tax under the head renting of immovable property. 2. Show Cause Notice dated 12/09/2014 was issued demanding service tax for the period 2009 10 to 2012 13 for an amount of Rs. 1,34,38,272/- under the service heads namely (i) Business Exhibition (sale of space) Rs. 1,83,214/- which was dropped, (ii) Renting/Business Support Service Rs. 15,98,338/- out of which an amount of Rs. 21,55,794/- was confirmed, wherein after appropriation the net demand is Rs. 5,10,38/- (iii) Commission on Sale Rs. 23,13,431/- which has been dropped in the impugned order (iv) Pure Agent Rs. 20,99,179/- which has also been dropped in the impugned order (v) Screening of Films under Business Support Service Rs. 72,44,110/- out of which an amount of Rs. 65,26,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld. counsel have also demonstrated from the copyright invoices raised by M/s Mukta Movie Film Distributor, for the relevant period, wherein the bill is by way of share bill. For example bill dated 1st May, 2010 raised on the appellant by M/s Mukta Movie Film Distributor, with regard to various films states the amount of net collection by the appellant and the sharing ratio of the distributor in the net collection and thereby arriving at the share payable to the distributor. Thus, there is no ambiguity in the findings of the ld. Commissioner as regards the modus operandi of the appellant. Moreover, the ld. counsel points out, with respect to CBEC Circular No.148/17/2011 ST dated 13/12/2011, wherein in Para 10 by way of summary it is provided....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ccounting on accrual basis. For this score, the ld. counsel prays that the matter be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for proper reconciliation, in accordance with law. 6. The ld. A. R. for Revenue have relied on the impugned order. 7. Having considered contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, we are satisfied that there is no dispute of fact that the appellant have been screening films in their multiplex on Revenue Sharing basis, which is undisputed finding recorded by the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is not liable to pay Service Tax for Screening of Films and payments to distributors in their theatre. We also take notice that the appellant have disclosed the gro....