TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1039
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'CESTAT') in the stay application filed by the Appellant in its appeal being Appeal No. ST/51507/2015-CU (DB) which in turn is directed against the order-in-original dated 29th November, 2013 passed by the Adjudicating Authority ('AA'), viz., the Commissioner of Service Tax ('CST'). 2. The brief facts as stated by the Appellant are that according to Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (SICCL) was keen to set up residential townships in or around Allahabad (in Uttar Pradesh) and Jodhpur (in Rajasthan). At each of the locations SICCL required around 100 to 150 acres of land. SICCL entered into Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with M/s. Sahara India (SI) which in turn entered into two separate MOUs dated 20th J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Allahabad was not utilised to purchase land and that the said amount was returned by way of transfer of shares of 2 group companies of the Appellant in favour of SICCL. 5. The AA in the order dated 29th November 2013 held that the Appellant had provided taxable 'real estate' services. The AA, however, agreed with the contention of the Appellant that "the cost/value of land cannot be included in the gross value for levy of service tax." Nevertheless, in proceeding to determine the service tax payable, the AA stated that in the absence of the Appellant providing the necessary details, the entire sum received by it would be considered as the taxable value for the purpose of computation of service tax. In other words the taxable va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Appellant, submitted that the Appellant did raise a contention that the MOUs did not reflect any taxable 'service' having been provided by the Appellant to SI. He pointed out that the SCN itself sets out the fact that while the Appellant made a profit as regards the purchase of land in Jodhpur, the amount received for the purchase of land in Allahabad was returned by it in the form of allotment of shares in 2 group companies in favour of SICCL. He submitted that with the AA having agreed with the Appellant that the entire sum received by the Appellant for purchase of land could not form the basis for computation of the service tax, there was no logic in the AA proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The AA has in the order dated 29th November 2013 come to the conclusion, on an analysis of the two MOUs entered into between the Appellant and SI, that the Appellant was working as an agent for SICCL and further that it had rendered two kinds of taxable services: one as a real estate agent/real estate consultant under Section 65 (89) of the FA and the other relating to levelling of soil including filling of gorges/nallah, removing of shrubs, grass and rubbish etc. classifiable under the head 'site formation and clearance excavation and earth moving and demolition services', as defined under Section 65 (97a) of the FA. Whether in fact the three MOUs reflect that the Appellant was acting as an agent of SICCL and that it had rendered t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its group companies does not appear to have been considered. A further question that would arise is whether the entire profit generated from the purchase of land in Jodhpur can be taken to be value of the taxable services, if any, rendered by the Appellant. Those questions cannot obviously be examined at this stage but will have to await the final determination in the appeal before the CESTAT. 14. The Court is satisfied that the Appellant has made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience at this stage in making a conditional order of pre-deposit is in favour of the Appellant. 15. Although the Court is not expressing any opinion on the contention of the Appellant that no taxable service has been rendered by it, and th....