TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ST, Ludhiana, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Order-in-Original and dismissed the appeals of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant i.e. A B Motions Pvt Ltd is, inter-alia, engaged in the business of Screening of Movies at their various Cinema Theatres and is registered with Department. The Department issued show cause notices dated 16.04.2015 & 13.04.2016 under Section 73 & 73(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994 ("Act") for the periods 01.10.2013 to 31.03.2014 & 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 ("Disputed Periods"), with reference to the C. No. IV(16) ST Task Force/Hqrs./Ldh/03/2013/8398 dated 15.04.2014 for the earlier period i.e. October 2008 to September 2013, for recovery of Serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Rs. 54,14,352/- u/s 73 of the Act along with Interest u/s 75 of the Act and Penalty of Rs. 54,14,352/- u/s 78 of the Act respectively. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide its Order-in-Appeal No. LUD-EXCUS-001-APP-1210-18 dated 08.01.2018 & Order-in-Appeal No. LUDEXCUS-001-APP-1268-18 dated 12.06.2018 upheld the OIO stating that the appellant and distributors/sub-distributors pool their resources and share risks and thus such arrangement constitutes an unincorporated joint venture, without appreciating the facts and legal submissions made by the appellant. Hence, the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to any joint venture. Further, no consideration has been received by the appellant from the said Distributors/ Sub-Distributors. She further submits that the Department has confirmed the demand solely on the basis of Circular No. 148/17/2011 dated 13.12.2011, but the said circular itself clarifies that in case the exhibitor screens movies on its own account, service tax liability lies on the Distributor/Sub-Distributor, not the exhibitor. She further submits that the execution of agreement between the appellant and distributors also strengthens the fact of non-existence of any joint venture. Further, the Distributor do not share the expenses or profits or losses for the exhibition of movies and the same are borne by the appellant only. Henc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the appellant is not classifiable under service tax category of the "Business Support Service" and therefore, not taxable. She also submit that the order of this Tribunal in the appellant's own case was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Diary No. 12044/2020). The Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the judgment of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax vs Inox Leisure Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 1335/2022). 5. On the other hand, learned authorized representative for the Department, reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record; we find that the issue involved in both the appeals is no more res integ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cense to exploit the theatrical rights of a motion picture and each party was entitled to conduct its business in its absolute and sole discretion. It was further made clear in the Agreement that either of the party shall not interfere or otherwise influence any decision of the other party in respect of the conduct of its business. 12. Such an arrangement between a distributor/producer and an exhibitor of films was examined by a Division Bench of the Tribunal in Moti Talkies. The Department alleged that the agreement was for 'renting of Immovable property' as defined under Section 65(90a) of the Finance Act. This contention was not accepted by the Tribunal and it was observed that the appellant did not provide any service t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ason that the appellant has not the appellant as provided any service to the distributors nor the distributors have made any payment consideration for the alleged service. In fact, the appellant who has paid money to the distributors for the screening rights conferred upon the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) completely misread the agreements entered into between the appellant as an exhibitor of the films and the distributors to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant was providing the service of "renting of immovable property." 13. Similar views were expressed by Division Benches of the Tribunal in The Asian Art Printers, Shri Vinay Kumar, M/s. Golcha Properties and Satyam Cineplexes Ltd. 14. What also needs to be ....