Tribunal upholds service tax demands for Renting of Immovable Property Service, emphasizes land as immovable property.

The Tribunal upheld service tax demands for various categories, including "Renting of Immovable Property Service", emphasizing that land appurtenant to buildings constitutes immovable property. The appellant's plea for penalty waiver was rejected due to failure to discharge tax liability despite judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of the confirmed tax liability, interest, and part of the penalty within a specified timeframe, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Service tax demand under different categories.
2. Dispute regarding service tax on "Renting of Immovable Property Service".
3. Evidence requirement for subsequent construction.
4. Interpretation of the definition of "immovable property".
5. Applicability of penalties and waiver provisions.

Analysis:
1. The appellant faced service tax demands under various categories, including "Renting of Immovable Property Service", "Site Formation Service", and "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service". The appellant did not dispute the demands for the latter two categories but contested the demand under "Renting of Immovable Property Service".

2. Regarding the demand for "Renting of Immovable Property Service", the appellant disputed the tax liability on vacant land leased to different entities. The appellant argued that certain land was not liable to service tax as it was separate from the buildings and fell under the exclusion clause of the relevant tax provisions. The adjudicating authority found the demand sustainable, emphasizing that land appurtenant to buildings constitutes immovable property, making the demand prima facie valid.

3. The Revenue contended that evidence for subsequent construction on leased land was lacking, justifying the confirmation of service tax demands. The appellant failed to provide evidence to counter this claim, leading to the conclusion that the consideration received for both land and building rentals was subject to service tax.

4. The interpretation of the definition of "immovable property" was crucial in determining the tax liability. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions and explanations to establish that land appurtenant to buildings qualifies as immovable property, irrespective of the size difference between the land and the building. This interpretation supported the sustainment of the service tax demand on the leased properties.

5. The appellant's plea for penalty waiver was rejected due to their failure to discharge the service tax liability despite judicial pronouncements deeming renting of immovable property a taxable service since 1-6-2007. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of the entire service tax liability confirmed, along with interest and a portion of the penalty, within a specified timeframe, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the service tax demands for certain categories, emphasizing the inclusion of land appurtenant to buildings as immovable property. The appellant was directed to comply with the pre-deposit requirements to avoid dismissal of the appeal.

---