TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 34
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tripathi (AC) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa The demand to the extent of Rs. 8,48,520/- stands confirmed against the appellant along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty of identical amount on the findings that during the period from 01.05.2006 to 31.12.2007 and from 01.01.2008 to 31.03.2008, the appellant had provided taxable services falling under the catego....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... initiated against them by invoking extended period of limitation resulting in passing of the present impugned order. 3. It is seen that the appellant took a categorical stands before the Authorities below that the agreement entered into between them and M/s Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited is for hiring of the studio/office alongwith the equipments. In terms of the said agreement it is the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the first time w.e.f. 16.05.2008. Inasmuch as the period involved in the present appeal is prior to 16.05.2008, no tax liability would arise against the appellant. 4. The said pleas were not accepted by the Lower Authorities who confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. 5. After hearing both the sides we find that the issue is no more res-integra. An identical situation was considered by the T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R. 165 (Tri.- Mumbai), Phoenix Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I reported 2016 (46) S.T.R. 120 (Tri.-Mumbai) and Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. vs. Commr. Of S.T., Mumbai reported at 2015 (38) S.T.R. 811 (Tri.-Mumbai). 6. We find that admittedly in the present case, office/studio along with equipment stands hired by the customer at a fix annual rent. Once the premises have ....