2016 (3) TMI 621

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Appellant : Shri Sandeep Mukherjee, CA For the Respondent : Shri Amresh Jain, DR ORDER Per R K Singh Stay application has been filed against order-in-original dated 31/1/2014 in terms of which service tax demand of Rs. 34,53,54,680/- covering period from 19/4/2008 to 30/7/2010 was confirmed along with interest and penalty under Renting of Immovable Property Service. 2. The Ld....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....08 and 17/7/2008, and therefore, could not be included in the assessable value. 3. The Ld. DR on the other hand stated that (i) any payments received even prior to rendition of taxable service are liable to be included in the assessable value in terms of Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994. (ii) The premium preferred to in CESTAT order in the case of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authorit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is very much part of the tripartite agreement which sets out the responsibilities of the State Government, the appellant and M/s. Deep Mala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and in terms of that agreement, the appellant was to receive only project management fee. As regards the service tax liability on the "premium", we have perused the order of the CESTAT in the case of Greater Noida Industrial Develop....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....titutes part of the assessable value of the impugned service. In these circumstances, but coupled with the fact that the appellant is not part of the lease agreement and therefore prima facie and strongly arguably was not provider of the impugned service and thus it is arguable that the service was rendered by State Government and not by the appellant, the appellant has a fairly a good case in its....