2024 (9) TMI 1826

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a to the appellant, or not. 2. Heard the parties. 3. We find that the said issue has already been examined by this Tribunal n the case of M/s. National Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST, Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar [Final Order No.76921 of 2024 dated 03.09.2024 in Service Tax  Appeal No. 75500 of 2024 - CESTAT, Kolkata], wherein it has been observed as under: - "The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the service tax has been charged on the water charges paid to the Government of Odisha for supply of water against the charges as per the specified rate stipulated in terms of the Agreement for the period April 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017. 2. The facts of the case are that the appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....deep Phosphates Limited (supra), wherein this Tribunal has observed as under : "6. We find that the issue involved in this matter is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax in terms of Section 65B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994 under the category of "allocation/auction of natural resources" or not ? The said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Sasan Power Limited (supra), wherein this Tribunal has observed as under: "16. Section 40 of the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Act, as noticed above, deals with supply of water for industrial, urban or other purposes and it provides that the charges shall be as agreed upon between the State government and the company and fixed in accordance with the rules ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ater by the government to the appellant and is not for assignment of any right to the appellant to use the natural resources of the government. 19. The appellant is, therefore, justified in asserting that the Agreement executed between the appellant and the government is for supply of water for which charges are paid by the appellant on the basis of volume of water drawn and it is not a case of assignment of right to use natural resources of the government. 20. In this view of the matter no service was provided by the government to the appellant. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside on this ground alone." 7. As the issue in this case has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Sasan Power ....