TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Ld. Advocate wherein the Bench had followed an earlier order of the Chennai Bench in the case of GRAND ROYALE ENTERPRISES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-I CHENNAI [ 2018 (10) TMI 656 - CESTAT CHENNAI] wherein it was held that the transaction between the licencee and the licensor therein was not one of renting of immovable property but a business transaction between the two since the consideration was not like a regular rent but depended on the annual performance and the profits generated. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and the one decided by the co-ordinate Bench for earlier periods and hence, the decision arrived at in the earlier order squarely covers the issue in the case on hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nty percent) of the Gross Room Income and all other Income except Food Beverage Income and 15% (Fifteen Percent) on the Food Beverage Income derived from the said hotel, shall be payable as per License Fee to the LICENCER on or before the tenth of the succeeding month, along with a statement showing particulars of the payment, and it shall be called MONTHLY LICENCE FEE. Service Tax or any other Tax leviable now or in the future on the License Fee shall be deemed to be part of the above said fee percentages. The Room Income, Food Beverage Income and other Income derived from the hotel shall be called Gross Turn Over of the Hotel. . 2.2 It appears that there was an amendment insofar as the Licence Fee payable was concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CEX-000-APP-101 102-14 dated 26.08.2014 even the Commissioner (Appeals) having rejected their appeals thereby upholding the demands in the Show Cause Notices, the present appeals have been filed before this forum. 6. Heard Ms. S. Akshaya, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri N. Satyanarayanan, Ld. Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue. 7. The Ld. Advocate would submit at the outset that the demands raised and confirmed in the impugned order are no longer res integra since an identical issue has been considered and answered by the co-ordinate Chennai Bench of the CESTAT in the appellant s own case for different periods vide Final Order Nos. 40409-40410 of 2023 dated 09.06.2023 in Service Tax Appeal Nos. 42062-42063 of 2013 [2023- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
