TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 599
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... another factory at Palghar, Maharashtra. During the period under dispute, the appellant entered into a conducting agreement dated 25.08.2004 read with supplemental agreements dated 25.10.2004, 05.08.2005, and 25.08.2007 ("Conducting Agreement") with International Syntha Fabs Pvt Ltd ("ISFPL") inter alia permitting ISFPL to use the land and plant, machinery and equipment ("PME") at Palghar Factory on rental basis. The consideration received towards renting of land and PME by the appellant from ISFPL, during the period under dispute. The case of the department is that such consideration is liable to Service Tax under the head of Business Support Service provided by the appellant to ISFPL, accordingly, a show cause notice was issued which was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to Board Circular dated 01.05.2006. He submits that by no stretch of imagination the activity of renting land and PME to ISFPL can be covered under Business Support Service, more particularly as 'infrastructural support service. He submits that the appellant is not the one providing any infrastructural support to the IFSPL. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- • Balaji Hindustan Limited commissioner of Central Excise, Lauknow- 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 111 (Tri- Ahmd.) • Zee Sports Ltd Vs. CCE Noida, 2018 (9) TMI 34 - CESTAT Allahabad • Srinivas Transports Vs CCES & ST Vishakhapatnam-I, 2014 (34) STR 765 (Tri.-Bang.) • Dish TV India Ltd Vs. CCE, Noida,- 2020 (41) GSTL 633 (Tri.-All) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d/ located in Palghar factory and the consideration was received and accounted b Palghar factory. The Palghar factory was under the jurisdiction of erstwhile Thane-II Commissionerate. In the present case the proceedings are against the appellant's Silvassa factory which was under the then Vapi Commissionerate and accordingly, has no jurisdiction over Palghar factory. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- • Candid Security Services Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex & S.T., Raipur- 2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 281 (Tri.-Del.) • Inox Leisure Limited Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-2016 (42) S.T.R 497 (Tri. - Mumbai) It is his submission that since the entire proceeding is without any jurisdiction over the palghar f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion made by both the sides and perused the records. The revenue has confirmed the demand of service tax during the activity of the appellant. As per the provision of Business Support Service which includes infrastructural support, to ascertain whether the activity falls under Business Support Service, it is necessary to read the definition which is extracted below:- "Support Services of Business or Commerce" means services procided in relation to business or commerce and includes evaluation of prospective customers, telemarketing, processing of purchase orders and fulfillment services, information and tracking of delivery schedules, managing distribution and logistics, customer relationship management services, accounting and proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pvt Ltd ("ISFPL") and it is the International Syntha Fabs Pvt Ltd ("ISFPL") who are conducting the activity on their own with the plant and machinery equipment taken on lease, therefore, the appellant has not provided any service as the service of outsource agency. For further clear understanding about the activity of the appellant the relevant extract of the conducting agreement dated 25.08.2004 is reproduced below:- "WHEREAS WSL is the owner of the Plant Machinery and Equipment for manufacture of twisted/Dyed yarn as described in Schedule 1 herewith standing on Plots No. 9,10,15,86,87 and 88 at Dewan Industrial Estate Palghar, Maharashtra State and has capacity to manufacture 6.600 M. Tons Dyed yarn Per Annum." 4.2 From the ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er entering into the said contract with the appellant. As such, the facts lead to the conclusion that the services undertaken by the appellant would fall under the category of renting of immovable property and supply of tangible goods. The explanation appearing under the definition of support services of business refers to altogether different circumstances wherein infrastructure is provided along with the office and other common utility to a person who is conducting his business from that place. The activity of renting of land and renting of plant and machinery cannot fall under the said explanation so as to recovered by the definition of 'support services of business or commerce." Similar view was taken in the cases of following ju....