Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2021 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 1222 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - renting of immovable property service - appellant is providing service to the film distributors by way of renting its theatre for screening films - convenience charges - pouring fees - other income - lease rent income - parking fees - service charges - VPF charges - advertisement income - sale of space or time for advertisement income - foreign exchange expenses - architect services - reverse charge mechanism. Renting of immovable property service - HELD THAT:- This issue also came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Tribunal in M/S. MOTI TALKIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI I [2020 (6) TMI 87 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. It was held that the demand of service tax under ‘renting of immovable property’ service was not justified for the reason that the Appellant had not provided any service to the distributor, nor the distributor had made any payment to the Appellant as a consideration for the alleged service. Income under convenience charges, pouring fees, other income, lease rent income, parking fees, VPF charges and service charges - HELD THAT:- In regard to convenience fees, pouring fees, parking fees and service charges, it was submitted that though the demand of service tax proposed in the show cause notice dated 21.04.2014 was under the category of ‘renting of immovable property’ services, the impugned order has confirmed the demand under the category of ‘support services of business’. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned order has gone beyond the show cause notice. In this connection, reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of the Tribunal in M/S DELHI DUTY FREE SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER CGST DIVISION, DELHI SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE [2019 (8) TMI 1489 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. A perusal of the reply to the show cause notice filed by the appellant as also the additional written submissions clearly show that the appellant had made detailed submissions an each of these heads - the impugned order, to the extent it has confirmed the demand of service tax under these four heads is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Advertisement Income - HELD THAT:- The Principal Commissioner committed an error in confirming the demand under this head. Reverse Charge mechanism - foreign expenditure incurred - HELD THAT:- Not only has the Principal Commissioner ignored the submission made on behalf of the appellant, but has also failed to take into consideration the fact that service tax had been paid by the appellant. The confirmation of demand under this head, therefore, cannot be sustained - the confirmation of demands under the impugned order cannot be sustained. Extended period of limitation - Penalty - HELD THAT:- It would not be necessary to examine the remaining issues raised by learned counsel for the appellant relating to invocation of the extended period of limitation or imposition of penalty. The appeal is allowed.
|