Satyam Cineplexes Ltd vs Principal Commissioner, Service ... on 27 August, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Satyam Cineplexes Ltd vs Principal Commissioner, Service ... on 27 August, 2021

Bench: Dilip Gupta

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI

PRINCIPAL BENCH

SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50384 OF 2016

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. DLI-SVTAX-001-COM-014-15-16 dated 30.11.2015
passed by the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I)

Satyam Cineplexes Ltd. ...Appellant
Satyam Cinema Building,
4th Floor, Ranjit Nagar,
Patel Nagar, New Delhi- 110008

Versus

Principal Commissioner of Service ...Respondent
Tax, Delhi-I

APPEARANCE:

Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate for the Appellant
Dr. Radhe Tallo, Authorised Representative of the Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of hearing: August 12, 2021
Date of decision: August 27, 2021

FINAL ORDER NO._51779/2021

JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA:

1
M/s. Satyam Cineplexes Limited has filed this appeal to

assail the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Principal

2
Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I adjudicating the two show

cause notices dated 21.04.2014 and 20.04.2015. The total

demand that has been confirmed by the impugned order is Rs.

1. the appellant
2. the Principal Commissioner
2
ST/50384/2016

19,19,92,658/- and the period of dispute is from October 2008 to

March 2014.

2. The issues that arises for consideration in this appeal relate

to:

(i) Demand of service tax under the category of 'renting

of immovable property' service for the reason that

the appellant is providing service to the film

distributors by way of renting its theatre for

screening films;

(ii) Demand of service tax on 'convenience charges',

'pouring fees', 'other income', 'lease rent income',

'parking fees', 'service charges' and 'VPF charges';

(iii) Demand of service tax on 'advertisement income'

under 'sale of space or time for advertisement

income'; and

(iv) Demand of service tax on foreign exchange expenses

incurred under 'architect services' under the reverse

charge mechanism.

3. The appellant is the owner of multiplexes, namely, Satyam

Cineplex, located at different parts of India and is engaged in the

business of exhibiting films in its theatre. The appellant claims

that it entered into agreements with the film distributors, whereby

the theatrical exhibition rights for exhibition of the film were

transferred to the appellant either temporarily (i.e. for specified

number of shows and period) or in perpetuity, depending on the

agreement between the parties. The appellant further claims that
3
ST/50384/2016

it is in exercise of such rights obtained from the Distributors, that

the appellant exhibited the movies in its theatres.

4. In lieu of obtaining such rights, the appellant agreed to

3
share a specified percentage of Net Box Office Collection with the

distributors, subject to other conditions specified therein in the

agreements. In one agreement dated 10.05.2013 entered into

between M/s. Eros International Media Limited and the appellant,

the appellant agreed to share 50%/40%/30% of NBOC on week

basis with M/s. Eros International Media Limited, subject to a

minimum guarantee share of the distributor.

5. The Department, however, took a stand that the appellant

was providing various elements of interconnected services to the

Distributors, such as renting/letting/leasing of theatre for

exhibition of films; manpower to manage the theatre operations,

provision of projector and other related equipments to screen the

films; arranging of power supply and providing arrangements to

collect the box office collections. As per the Department, the

essential character of the bundle of services provided was in the

nature of 'renting of immovable property' service defined under

section 65(90a) and made taxable under section 65(105)(zzzz) of

4
the Finance Act, 1994 for the period till 30.06.2012 and under

section 66E(a) of the Finance Act read with section 66F(3)(b) of

the Finance Act for the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2014.

This view of the Department was based on an understanding that

the copyrights of the movies/films were not transferred/sold by

3. NBOC
4. the Finance Act
4
ST/50384/2016

the film distributors, either temporarily or otherwise, to the

appellant and hence, the appellant was only letting out its

premises for exhibition of films to the distributors. The

Department also questioned the service tax liability of the

appellant with respect to various income as recorded in the

balance sheet.

6. The investigation carried on by the Department resulted into

issuance of the following two show cause notices proposing

demands contained in the Table below:

Serial Show Cause Notice Demand Amt. (in
Period
No. dated Rs.)

1. 21.04.2014 Oct 08 to Mar 13 23,43,68,946/-

2. 20.04.2015 Apr 13 to Mar 14 10,01,48,977/-

Total Rs. 33,45,17,923/-

7. The demand proposed in the show cause notice is

categorized issue-wise as below:

Serial Nature of Amount Service Tax demanded in the
No. Show Cause Notices (in Rs.)
1. Income from hiring charges 289725538/-
2. Convenience Charges 1717955/-
3. Pouring Fees 1344150/-
4. Other Income 1204302/-
5. Lease Rent Income 1277565/-
6. Parking Fees 439966/-
7. Service Charges 1794817/-
8. Advertisement Income 50064563/-
9. Foreign Exchange Expenses 1302142/-
Incurred

10. VPF Charges 56120/-

11. Service tax already paid (-) 14409194/-

TOTAL Rs. 33,45,17,923/-
5
ST/50384/2016

8. The aforesaid show cause notices were adjudicated upon by

the Principal Commissioner by order dated 30.11.2015. Out of the

total demand of Rs. 33,45,17,923/- raised in the show cause

notices, demand of Rs. 19,19,92,658/- for the period October

2008 to March 2014 was sustained. The computation of the same

issue-wise is given in the following Table:

Serial Nature of Service Tax Service Tax Demand dropped
No. Amount proposed in Show confirmed in the by the impugned
Cause Notices (in order (in Rs.) order (in Rs.)
Rs.)
1. Income from 289725538/- 162445706/- 127279832/-
hiring charges
2. Convenience 1717955/- 1537373/- 180582/-
Charges
3. Pouring Fees 1344150/- 1211697/- 132453/-
4. Other Income 1204302/- 844015/- 360287/-
5. Lease Rent 1277565/- 1138120/- 139445/-
Income
6. Parking Fees 439966/- 393426/- 46540/-
7. Service 1794817/- 1601939/- 192878/-
Charges
8. Advertisement 50064563/- 36915520/- 13149043/-
Income
9. Foreign 1302142/- 1178754/- 123388/-
Exchange
Expenses
Incurred
10. VPF Charges 56120/- 49947/- 6173/-
11. Service tax (-) 14409194/- - (+) 914641/-
already paid

TOTAL Rs. 33,45,17,923/- Rs.19,19,92,658/- Rs. 14,25,25,265/-

9. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant made the following submissions:

(i) The appellant is not providing 'renting of immovable

property' services to the distributors. In support of

this contention reliance has been placed on the

following decisions of the Tribunal:
6
ST/50384/2016

a) Moti Talkies vs. Commissioner of Service
Tax, Delhi-I5;

b) M/s. The Asian Art Printers (Sheila
Theatre) vs. Principal Commissioner of
6
Service Tax, Delhi-I ;

c) Shri Vinay Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Regal
Theatre vs. Principal Commissioner of
Service Tax, Delhi-I7; and

d) M/s. Golcha Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Principal Commissioner of Service Tax,
Delhi-I8;

(ii) Demand of service tax on income under the heads

'convenience charges', 'pouring fees', 'other income',

'lease rent income', 'parking fees', 'VPF charges' and

'service charges' shown in the balance sheet is not

sustainable. The impugned order has recorded that

the appellant did not submit any reply to the first

show cause notice dated 21.04.2014. The appellant

had submitted a reply to the first show cause notice

on 24.10.2014. The impugned order is, therefore,

liable to be set aside on this ground alone;

(iii) In so far as convenience fees, pouring fees, parking

fees and service charges are concerned, the demand

of service tax was proposed in the show cause notice

dated 21.04.2014 under the category of 'renting of

immovable property' service. The impugned order

has gone beyond the show cause notice by

5. 2020 (6) TMI 87 - CESTAT New Delhi
6. Delhi-I, 2020 (12) TMI 1012 - CESTAT New Delhi
7. 2020 (11) TMI 436 - CESTAT New Delhi
8. 2020 (11) TMI 137 - CESTAT New Delhi
7
ST/50384/2016

confirming the demand under the category of

'support services of business';

(iv) The demand on amount under lease rent has been

confirmed under the category of 'renting of

immovable property' service by the impugned order

without giving any specific finding on the same. To

this extent, the impugned order is a non-speaking

and the demand is liable to be set aside on this

ground alone;

(v) The demand on the amount under 'other income'

has been confirmed for the period 2008-09 to 2012-

13 under the category of 'renting of immovable

property' service by giving a finding that the

appellant did not make any submission on this issue.

The said finding in the impugned order is incorrect as

the appellant had filed a reply to the first show cause

notice dated 21.04.2014, wherein detailed

submissions on this issue had been made;

(vi) The demand on VPF charge has been confirmed

under the category of 'renting of immovable

property' service by the impugned order. The said

amount is a subsidy paid by a film distributor

towards the purchase of digital cinema projection

equipment for use by a film exhibitor in the

presentation of first release motion pictures. This is

paid in the form of a fee per booking of a movie. The

appellant duly deposited the service tax on such
8
ST/50384/2016

charges and the same has been acknowledged at

paragraph 10.4 of the impugned order;

(vii) Demand of service tax on income under the head

'advertisement income' shown in the balance sheet is

not sustainable. The impugned order has given a

finding that the appellant did not make any

submission on this issue with respect to the first

show cause notice dated 21.04.2014. The said

finding is incorrect as the appellant had filed a reply

to the first show cause notice dated 21.04.2014

issued for the period 2008-09 to 2012-13 on

21.10.2014, wherein detailed submissions on this

issue was made at Ground F. Further, the said

demand of Rs. 3,69,15,520/- confirmed in the order

includes the service tax on income for the period

01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013, which has been

categorically set aside in paragraph 8.3 of the

impugned order. To this extent, the demand is

required to be set aside. Further, for the period

2008-09 to 30.06.2012, due service tax has been

paid by the appellant which fact has been stated in

the reply dated 21.10.2014. Hence, service tax

demand on the said amount is not sustainable;

(viii) Demand confirmed under reverse charge mechanism

is not sustainable. The impugned order has given a

finding that the appellant did not make any

submission on this issue. The said finding in the
9
ST/50384/2016

impugned order is incorrect as the appellant had

filed a reply to the first show cause notice dated

21.04.2014 as is evident from Ground G of the reply;

and

(ix) The extended period of limitation could not have

been invoked in the present case as the Department

failed to point out any positive act of suppression on

part of the appellant. Hence, the demand till

September 2010 is time barred.

10. Dr. Radhe Tallo, learned Authorised Representative

appearing for the Department has however, supported the

impugned order and contended that it does not call for any

interference in this appeal. Learned Authorised Representative

pointed out that the intention of the parties as per the

agreement agreed upon was 'hiring of theatres for screening of

films' which will fall under the category of 'renting of immovable

property' service. Learned Authorised Representative also

submitted that since the appellant has stated that the reply to

the show cause notice dated 21.04.2014 was not considered by

the Principal Commissioner for the reason that the reply had not

been submitted, the matter can be remanded to the Principal

Commissioner to examine the reply and pass a fresh order.

11. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the

appellant and the learned Authorised Representative appearing

for the Department have been considered.

12. The issue raised under various heads can be considered

now.
10
ST/50384/2016

Renting of immovable property service

13. According to the appellant, as owner of multiplexes, it

exhibits the films for the entertainment of the customers and for

getting the films exhibited in its theatre, the appellant entered

into agreements with the film distributors under which the film

distributors granted copyright license in the form of theatrical

exhibition rights to the Appellant. As against the transfer of such

rights, the Appellant agreed to pay certain amount to the

distributors, generally fixed as a percentage of the NBOC. This has

been held by the Principal Commissioner as providing 'renting of

immovable property' service to the distributors. This issue has

examined again by the Tribunal in Moti Talkies.

14. This issue also came up for consideration before a Division

Bench of the Tribunal in Moti Talkies. 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. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced

below:

"Agreements entered into between distributors and the
Appellant, who is an exhibitor for screening pictures, have
been considered to be agreements for "renting of immovable
property" as defined under section 65(90a) of the Finance Act
1994, the Finance Act by the Department and accordingly,
show cause notices have been issued to the Appellant
demanding service tax. The demands made in the show cause
notices have been confirmed by the Additional Commissioner
(Adjudication) and the appeal filed by the Appellant to assail
the said order has been dismissed by the Commissioner
(Appeals). It is the dismissal of the appeal by the
Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 12 July that has led
to the filing of this appeal.
2. The appellant is the owner of a cinema hall situated at
Chandni Chowk, New Delhi and is engaged in the business of
11
ST/50384/2016

exhibiting films in its theatre. The copy right over the films is
owned by the distributors. The appellant enters into
agreements with the film distributors to obtain such copy
rights under which the right to exhibit the films is transferred
to the appellant, either temporarily or in perpetuity,
depending upon the nature of the agreements between the
parties.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
11. It is more than apparent from a bare perusal of the
aforesaid agreements that they have been entered into
between the appellant as an exhibitor and the distributors for
screening of the films on the terms and conditions mentioned
therein. The payments contemplated under the terms and
conditions either require the exhibitor to pay a fixed amount
or a certain percentage, subject to minimum exhibitor share
or theatre share of effective shows in a week.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
16. It is very difficult to even visualize that the appellant is
providing any service to the distributor by renting of
immovable property or even any other service in relation to
such renting. The agreements that have been executed
between the appellant and the distributors confer rights upon
the appellant to screen the film for which the appellant is
making payment to the distributors. The distributors are not
making any payment to the appellant. Thus, no consideration
flows from the distributors to the appellant for the alleged
service.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
18. It is not possible to accept the reasonings given by the
Commissioner (Appeals) for confirming the demand of service
tax under ―renting of immovable property for the simple
reason that the appellant has not provided any service to the
distributors nor the distributors have made any payment to
the appellant as 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.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
23. The position in law does not change with effect from 1
July, 2012 because even under section 66B of the Finance
Act, service tax is levied on the value of all services, other
than those services specified in the negative list, provided or
agreed to be provided in the taxable territory by one person
to another. Though, ―renting of immovable property is a
declared service under section 66E of the Finance Act, then
too under section 67(1) of the Finance Act, the value shall, in
a case where the provision of service is for a consideration in
money, be the gross amount charged by the service provider
for such service provided or to be provided by him. The
appellant is not receiving any payment from the distributor
and, therefore, no service can be said to have been provided
by the appellant."
12
ST/50384/2016

15. This decision was subsequently followed by the Tribunal in

Golcha Properties, Vinay Kumar and The Asian Art Printers.

16. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the finding recorded

by the Principal Commissioner that 'renting of immovable

property' service had been rendered by the Appellant to the film

distributors.

Income under 'convenience charges', 'pouring fees', 'other

income', 'lease rent income', 'parking fees', 'VPF charges' and

'service charges'.

17. The appellant has shown income under various heads like

'convenience charges', 'pouring fees', 'other income', 'lease rent

income', 'parking fees', 'VPF charges' and 'service charges' in its

balance sheet, for the period 2008-09 to 2013-14. The impugned

order has confirmed the demand of service tax on the amount

shown by the appellant under the aforesaid heads.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though

the impugned order mentions that the appellant had not

submitted any reply to the first show cause notice dated

21.04.2014, but the appellant had submitted a reply to the show

cause notice on 24.10.2014. In this connection, learned counsel

placed the copy of the reply, which is at page 499 of the Appeal

Memo.

19. The endorsement contained in the reply at page 499 does

show it was received on 21.10.2014. It is also seen that additional

written submissions were filed by the appellant to the show cause

notice dated 21.04.2014 and in paragraph J.1 it was specifically

stated that a reply to the said show cause notice dated
13
ST/50384/2016

21.04.2014 was filed by the appellant on 21.10.2014 and filing of

the additional written submissions to the first show cause notice

dated 21.04.2014 has been acknowledged in the impugned order.

It is, therefore, clear that the appellant had submitted a reply to

the show cause notice dated 21.04.2014 on 21.10.2014, but the

Principal Commissioner failed to consider it. The impugned order,

therefore, for this reason alone, in so far as the demand raised in

the first show cause notice is concerned, deserves to be set aside.

20. Learned Authorised Representative of the Department

submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Principal

Commissioner to pass a fresh order after considering the reply.

However, as learned Counsel for the appellant and learned

Authorised Representative have made submissions on merit, it

would be appropriate to examine the same.

21. Learned counsel for the appellant made detailed

submissions under the various heads.

22. 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
14
ST/50384/2016

Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner CGST Division, Delhi

South Commissionerate9.

23. This submission advanced by the learned counsel for the

appellant deserves to be accepted. It is apparent from a perusal of

the show cause notice dated 21.04.2014 that demands were made

under the category of 'renting of immovable property' service but

the demands have been confirmed under the category of 'support

services of business'. In Delhi Duty Free Services, the Tribunal

held that the order of the adjudicating authority or the appellate

authority cannot go beyond the show cause notice and the

observations are:

"16. The issue as to whether the Adjudicating Authority or
the Appellate Authority can go beyond the issue raised in
the show cause notice has been examined time and again.
17. In Ballarpur Industries Ltd., the Supreme Court
observed that it was well settled that a show cause notice is
the foundation in the matter of levy and recovery of duty,
penalty and interest and if there was no invocation of Rule 7
of the Valuation Rules, 1975 in the show causes notice, it
would not be open to the Commissioner to invoke the said
Rule. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court
in Brindavan Beverages.
18. In Nestor Pharmaceuticals Ltd. a Division Bench of the
Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot
go beyond the scope of the show cause notice and that no
matter can be decided on a ground other than the grounds
raised in the show cause notice and for this reason the
impugned order was set aside. In Tata Johnson Controls
Automotive a Division Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal
observed that it was not open to the Commissioner
(Appeals) to make out a new case in the order passed by
the Commissioner and, therefore, the Order passed by the
Commissioner (Appeals) deserved to be set aside on this
ground alone."

24. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the

finding contained in the impugned order that the appellant had not

made any submission on these issues is factually incorrect as the

9. 2019 (8) TMI 1489- CESTAT New Delhi
15
ST/50384/2016

appellant had made detail submissions as to why service tax could

not be demanded under this head.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. In regard to the service tax confirmed under the head

'lease rent', learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

demand has been confirmed without giving any specific finding

even though detail submissions were made by the appellant in

paragraphs B.53 to B.57 of the submissions dated 21.10.2014.

Learned counsel also submitted that the amount received from

M/s. Superior Films is in the nature of share towards the business

rights granted by the appellant and cannot be considered towards

provision of any 'renting of immovable property' service. Learned

Counsel also pointed out that the appellant had deposited service

tax on the amount received in lieu of space given to vendors

under the 'renting of immovable property' service and this fact

was stated in the reply filed to the show cause notice.

28. The submission made by the learned counsel for the

appellant on this issue need to be accepted. Apart from the fact

that the Principal Commissioner has not given any reason for

sustaining the demand proposed in the show cause notice under

this head, the appellant had also deposited service tax on the
16
ST/50384/2016

amount received in lieu of space given to vendors under 'renting

of immovable property' service. Thus, the demand confirmed

under this head cannot be sustained.

29. In regard to the confirmation of demand under 'other

income' for the period 2008-09 to 2012-13 under the category of

'renting of immovable property' service, learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that the finding recorded by the Principal

Commissioner in the impugned order that the appellant had not

made any submissions on this issue is factually incorrect as the

appellant had explained in detail the factual position in the reply

and the additional written submissions filed in response to the first

show cause notice.

30. This submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the

appellant also deserves to be accepted. It is seen that submissions

had in fact been made by the appellant. This apart, it is also a fact

that demand on similar income for the period 2013-14 had been

dropped by the Principal Commissioner, which fact is clear from

paragraph 12.3.2 of the order.

31. In regard to VPF charges, learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that this amount is a subsidy paid by a film distributor

towards the purchase of digital cinema projection equipment for

use by a film distributor in the presentation of first release motion

pictures and this is paid in the form of a fee per booking of a

movie. Learned counsel pointed out that service tax on this

amount was deposited and the same has also been acknowledged

in paragraph 10.4 of the impugned order.
17
ST/50384/2016

32. The service tax has been deposited on the income generated

under this head. The demand, therefore, could not have been

confirmed on an assumption that service tax had not been paid.

Advertisement Income

33. The impugned order records that the appellant did not make

any submission on this issue with regard to the first show cause

notice dated 21.04.2014.

34. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that

detail submissions were made in the reply filed to the show cause

notice in Ground F, but they have not been considered. Learned

counsel also pointed out that service tax for the period

01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 has been set aside in paragraph 8.3 of

the impugned order and for the period 2008-09 to 30.06.2012,

service tax was paid by the appellant. This fact was stated in the

reply to the show cause notice.

35. The period-wise demand and whether service tax was paid

or not is given below in the following tabular form:

Financial Advertisement Taxable Rate of Amount Service Tax
Year/Income Income Income service of paid/not paid
heads after tax service
cum-tax tax
benefit
2008-09 1,97,53,869 17580873 12.36% 2172996 The total service
2009-10 6,80,54,595 61699542 10.3% 6355053 tax to be paid
2010-11 9,81,47,422 88982250 10.3% 9165171 comes to Rs.
2011-12 9,41,60,498 85367632 10.3% 8792866 2,78,23,614/-,
2012-13 1,21,58,951 10821423 12.36% 1337528 However, the
(till Appellant has
30.06.2012) discharged
service tax on
advertisement
income to the
tune of Rs.
2,78,52,905/-,
which is more
than the required
amount.
18
ST/50384/2016

2012-13 8,39,88,537 - - - Not taxable in
(from terms of Section
01.07.2012) 66D(g) of the
Finance Act,
1994;
Demand has also
been dropped in
the impugned
order (paragraph
8.3)

2013-14 7,35,20,504 - - - Not taxable in
terms of Section
66D(g) of the
Finance Act.
Demand has
been dropped in
the impugned
order (paragraph
8.3).

36. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid chart that the

Principal Commissioner committed an error in confirming the

demand under this head.

Reverse Charge

37. The demand of service tax on 'foreign expenditure incurred'

has been confirmed by the impugned order under 'reverse charge'

holding that the appellant did not make any submission on this

issue.

38. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the reply

filed to the show cause notice dated 21.04.2014, detail

submissions were made in Ground G. Learned counsel for the

appellant also submitted that the appellant had paid service tax,

which fact was stated in the reply to the show cause notice.

39. This submission made by the learned counsel for the

appellant deserves to be accepted. Not only has the Principal

Commissioner ignored the submission made on behalf of the
19
ST/50384/2016

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.

40. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid discussion that the

confirmation of demands under the impugned order cannot be

sustained.

41. It would, therefore, 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.

42. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the impugned order

dated 21.04.2014 is set aside and as the appeal is allowed.

(Order pronounced on 27.08.2021)

(JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA)
PRESIDENT

(P. ANJANI KUMAR)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

JB
20
ST/50384/2016