2017 (3) TMI 1221

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the respondent Per: C J Mathew Revenue is in appeal against order-in-appeal no.US/38/RGD/2013 dated 31^st January 2013 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals -II), Mumbai - II which confirmed demand of Rs. 18,92,377/-, along with interest thereon, and imposed penalties under section 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 for providing 'renting of immovable property service' defi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....'vacant land given on lease or lease of construction of building or temporary structure'. The demand was raised on the ground that insertion of 'vacant land' in 2010 in the meaning of 'immovable property' was to be retrospectively applied to all vacant land so leased when the service became taxable. 3. The facts are undisputed. The sole point for consideration is whether....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xtent that the vacant land continued to be so on the date of insertion. It is the claim of the appellant that the entire building with facilities had been completed even before renting was made taxable in 2007. Consequently, they contend that what was not leviable to tax in 2007 is not liable to be subject to tax by retrospective effect of insertion in explanation. 6. There is no doubt that as ....