TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 977
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the appellants are a company wholly owned by State Government of Utter Pradesh and registered under Companies Act, 1956. The responsibility of appellant is to promote Industry by developing infrastructure. The appellant used to acquire lands in various parts of State of Utter Pradesh, developed the land for industrial purpose, subdivide land into various plots and allot the plots for the purpose of setting up industries. Further, the appellant was also supervising construction work undertaken by other Government Departments. After carrying out investigations by DGCEI, appellants were issued with a show cause notice dated 19.10.2012. A demand of service tax of Rs. 85,35,80,564/- was raised on four issues. The said demand was confirmed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d with in the present case, since the lease of the land is of 90 years and the land was let-out for the purpose of industrial units and it was let-out by State Government Industrial Development Corporation. iii) The learned A.R. for revenue has agreed that the issue is covered by said Section 104 of Finance Act, 1994. iv) We have carefully gone through the provisions of Section 104 ibid and facts of the case and we find that the vacant land was given as industrial plots for the purpose of industrial units by State Government Industrial Development Corporation for lease of more than 30 years and that the above stated service tax was confirmed on one time upfront amount, in the form of lump-sum amount and therefore, we hold that the benefit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inable, in respect of rent collected on vacant land and plots for industrial purpose which was leased for the period of 90 years. He has further submitted that the amount collected as rent was taken as consideration by revenue for computation of service tax and the same cannot be considered as consideration and cum duty benefit is admissible to the appellant. Learned counsel for appellant has also submitted that the total demand is worked out by him from the available record and service tax on rent collected on vacant land works out to Rs. 61,75,449/- for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2012. He has further submitted that the levy was made effective from 01.07.2010 and therefore, there was no authority of law to collect service tax from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on renting of vacant land from 01.07.2010 to 19.04.2011. We further hold that the consideration received by the appellant in respect of said service for the period from 01.07.2010 to 31.03.2012 was admissible for benefit of cum duty value. Taking the above issue into consideration the service tax payable by the appellant on renting of vacant land needs to be recalculated. For the said purpose, we remand the matter back to the Original authority, who is directed to strictly follow aforesaid observations and re-determine service tax payable by the appellant on renting of vacant land. We also direct the Original Authority not to impose any penalty under Section 78 for the period after 20.04.2011. c) Service Tax on renting of infrastructural f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not included in the levy. iv) We have carefully gone through the provisions of law and we find that the issue needs to be examined on the basis of facts and provisions of law. Further, the cum duty benefit also need to be extended to the appellant. We also note that the levy was charged w.e.f. 01.06.2007 though the notification was issued on 22.06.2010. Therefore, there cannot be any malafide intention for evasion of duty from 01.06.2007 to 22.06.2010. Therefore, extended period of limitation for the period from 01.06.2007 to 22.06.2010 is not applicable in the present case. We further find that other observations in the sub-para-b above are also applicable in the present case. We, therefore, remand the matter back to the Original Authori....