AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1539
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment for providing various taxable services. On the basis of intelligence, investigation was initiated against the appellant for providing taxable services of 'sale of space or time for advertisement', renting of immovable property and also providing services of membership or club or association, without discharging appropriate service tax on the same. On completion of investigation, show-cause notice was issued on 13.10.2010 alleging that they had rendered services under the taxable category of 'sale of space or time for advertisement', renting of immovable property service and failed to discharge appropriate service tax on 'club or association service' and availed irregular cenvat credit on LED score board. Consequently, service tax amount of Rs.1,00,96,834/- not paid under the category of 'sale of space or time for advertisement service' for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2010; Rs.39,08,913/- towards 'renting of immovable property service' for the period 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2010 and Rs.66,05,262/- under the category of 'membership or club or association service' for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2010 and cenvat credit of Rs.28,64,140/- availed wrongly were proposed to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ergent views on the subject, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. In support, they have referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2002(146) ELT 481 (SC)]. 3.3. On the issue of confirmation of demand on renting of immovable property service, the learned advocate referring to the definition of 'renting of immovable property' under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 has submitted that a service provided by way of renting immovable property for use in the course of or furtherance of business or commerce is a taxable service. The appellant submits that the demand by the Respondent is vague, unsubstantiated and without any basis and verification. The appellant states that the demand is raised by making summary allegations referring to financial statements, ledgers and worksheet, thus, flouting the settled law that a SCN should be specific and unambiguous. Referring to Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994, it is submitted that a service provided by way of renting immovable property for use in the course of or furtherance of business or commerce is a taxable service. Further, Exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant has availed credit pertaining to LED scoreboards as capital goods, in pursuance of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Additionally, a perusal of the SCN indicates that the Respondent has not questioned the eligibility of the credit to the appellant, however, it has been held that even though the Appellant has initially availed the Credit and depreciation, the CVD portion was deleted from the gross block and thus, entitling the Appellant to be eligible for credit only in 2005-06. He has further submitted that once the Appellant has been deemed to be eligible for the Credit, it indicates that the department at the first instance acknowledged the fact that there was no claim of double benefit i.e., claim of depreciation as well as claim of credit by the Appellant and thus, on a later stage the same cannot be challenged. Further, it is also submitted by the Appellant that even though the LED scoreboard is imported for cricketing activities, it is capable of being used for purposes such as display of programs, advertisement etc. In this regard, it is also stated that during the period of 2004-2005, LED scoreboard has been used for display of programmes on the screen to provide be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the category of 'renting of immovable property service'; (iii) service tax of Rs.66,05,262/- for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2010 under the category of 'club or association service'; (iv) the appellants are eligible for cenvat credit of Rs.28,64,140/- on the LED score board and (v) extended period of limitation is invokable. 7. On the first issue, undisputed facts are that the appellant had entered into agreements with M/s. Sky Ads Integrated Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Artech Advertising and M/s. Frontier Group Pvt. Ltd. for providing space for putting up of electronic hoardings / advertisements against considerations mentioned in the respective agreements. The Department considered the said service is taxable under the category of sale of space or time for advertisement service as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner in the impugned order observed that under the said agreements, the appellant had permitted the licensees to put up advertisement hoardings and signages within the premises of the appellant on terms and conditions as specified n the said agreements. For using this facility, the appellant was paid amounts as specified in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other words, the appellant has allowed SFIPL to use the advertising space available in the ground. Similarly the appellant has allowed TFPL to erect giant screen for advertisement purposes. 5.3.1 Section 65(105)(zzzm) defines the taxable service as : "(zzzm) to any person, by any other person, in relation to sale of space or time for advertisement, in any manner; but does not include sale of space for advertisement in print media and sale of time slots by a broadcasting agency or organization. Explanation 1. - For the purposes of this sub-clause, "sale of space or time for advertisement" includes, - (i) providing space or time, as the case may be, for display, advertising, showcasing of any product or service in video programmes, television programmes or motion pictures or music albums, or on billboards, public places, buildings, conveyances, cell phones, automated teller machines, internet; (ii) selling of time slots on radio or television by a person, other than a broadcasting agency or organisation; and (iii) aerial advertising. Explanation 2. - For the purposes of this sub-clause, "print media" means, - (i)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... main contractors have discharged the service tax liability, they are not liable to service tax has no merit whatsoever. The agreement entered into between the appellant with SFIPL/TFPL shows that it is on a principal to principal basis and there is no sub-contractor relationship between the appellant and SFIPL/TFPL. Further, even if it is assumed that such a relationship exists, that does not obliterate the liability of the appellant to discharge service tax liability. Every service provider has to discharge service tax liability on the activity undertaken by him on the consideration received by him. If the recipient of the service undertakes further taxable services, he has to discharge service tax liability on the value addition made by him by taking credit of the service tax paid at the preceding stage. That is the essence of value added taxation in service tax. The said majority opinion was later followed by the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in CCE&ST, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Cricket Association [2023(72) GSTL 93 (Tri. Ahmd.)], which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 2023(72) GSTL 5 (SC). Therefore, the services rendered by the appellant by letting o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so referring to the said retrospective amendment, has confirmed the demand for the period from 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2010. The appellant has vehemently opposed to the recovery of service tax on the basis of retrospective amendment invoking extended period of limitation. In support, they referred to the judgments in the case of Commissioner Vs. National Institute of Bank Management (supra); J.K Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. & Another Vs. UOI & others (supra); CCE, Raipur Vs. Loyd Tar Products (supra) and Sujala Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC,CE&ST, Guntur (supra). We find merit in the argument of the learned advocate for the appellant. Therefore, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and liability, if any, be restricted to normal period only. 11. On the issue of admissibility of cenvat credit of Rs.28,64,140/- availed by the appellant on LED electronic score board installed in the stadium as capital goods during the relevant period, we find that the learned Commissioner has denied the same observing that initially the appellant had availed income tax benefit by including the value of the same in the Gross Block for the Financial Year 2004-05; however in the year 2005-06, though....