TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this appeal by way of remand to the ld. Commissioner, so as to reconcile the payments made by the tenants for the period prior to 30/09/2011. The appellant is also directed to reconcile their accounts and if any amount is payable by them for the period subsequent to 30/09/2011, calculate the same and after depositing the tax, if any, intimate to the Adjudicating Authority. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - ST/70563/2016-CU[DB] - ST/A/71279/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 29-8-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Abhishek A. Rastogi, Advocate with Shri Harbir Singh, Advocate, for Appellant Shri P. K. Dubey, Superintendent (AR), for Respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the admitted facts, as contained in Para 9.1 of the impugned order, the appellant operated their cinema theatre in collaboration with the film distributor, namely M/s Mukta Movie Film Distributors, Mumbai on principal to principal basis. Accordingly, no service tax is exigible on such payment to the distributor. He further points out that in Para 9.1 the ld. Commissioner have observed that the screening activity of films, supplied by M/s Mukta Movie Film Distributor, has been undertaken by the appellant on revenue sharing basis. In terms of arrangement between the Film's Distributor and the appellant theatre owner, after temporary transfer of copyrights of movies, the movies have been exhibited by the appellant. In terms of agreements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Film. Accordingly, the ld. counsel prays for deleting the tax liability confirmed under this head. 4. As regards the Renting/Business Support Service. The ld. Counsel explains that their tenants, under the Stay Order granted by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Retailers Association of India Versus Union of India Ors. reported at 2011-TIOL-104-SC-ST, order dated 14th October, 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 8390 of 2011 Ors. have as per the directions of the Apex Court, deposited the 50% amount of service tax for the period prior to 30/09/2011. So far the demand subsequent to 30/09/2011 is concerned, there is no stay granted, the appellant as property owner is paying regularly and there is no dispute on this score. 5. As r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble by them for the period subsequent to 30/09/2011, calculate the same and after depositing the tax, if any, intimate to the Adjudicating Authority. As regards the other issue regarding differential tax demanded ₹ 56,114/- as different accounting method in the financial accounts (accrual basis) and ST-3 return, which was on receipt basis, we remanded to the ld. Commissioner to reconcile and direct the appellant to provide the calculation, and to examine the same and be considered in accordance with law. 8. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part and remanded in part as indicated hereinabove. The appellant shall be entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with law. We also take notice of the fact that the amount of ₹ 22,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
