TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peals) has upheld the Order-in-Original dated 10.10.2014. 2. Briefly the facts of the present are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of Sugar and is registered with the Central Excise Department and also registered for payment of service tax on reverse charge basis on the transport of goods by roads. 3. The appellant had signed an MOU dated 12.01.2009 with M/s Saraya Industries Ltd. (M/s SIL) whereby, M/s SIL was to set up a Cleaning Development Mechanism (CDM) co-generation plant of 12MW on Built Own Cooperate and Transfer (BOOT) basis, on 2 acres of land to be provided by the appellant. As per the MOU M/s SIL was to invest in the existing Sugar Mills to upgrade/modernize it from the existing level of 2500 TCD to 3000 TCD w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dation of Sugar Mills. On these allegations, a show cause notice was issued proposing to demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 21,19,586/- on the amount of Rs.2 crores and the interest of Rs.5,78,502/- accrued on the amount of Rs. 2 crores as on 01.04.2012. The Department had mainly relied upon Circular No.151/2/2012-ST to demand service tax under the category of 'Renting of Immoveable Property'. The department has also invoked extended period of limitation to demand tax, interest and penalty. After following the due process, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and the same was upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. 6. Learned co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re and therefore, there is no component of service between the two parties; he also submits that the extended period has wrongly been invoked as there is no wilful mis-statement or suppression of fact on the part of the appellant; he also prays for the benefit of Section 80 may be given. He further submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered identical case of M/s Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills, involving similar facts, wherein, the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the appeal of the Sugar Mill and the same was accepted by the Department but the said submissions have been rejected by the learned Commissioner. 6.3 Learned counsel also submits that the Revenue has raised a demand on similar facts against M/s Fazilk....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mills involving identical facts, the learned Commissioner has allowed the appeal of that sugar mills and the Department has accepted the same on merits but the learned Commissioner refused to follow the said decision without any justified reason. We also find that the amount of Rs. 2 crore was in fact given by M/s SIL to the appellant for upgradation and modernization of the sugar mill and to expand the capacity of sugar mill from the existing level of 2500 TCD to 3000 TCD and to improve energy efficiency. We also note that in the case of M/s Fazilka Corporative Sugar Mills Ltd. (cited supra), the Department sought to demand service tax under the category of business support service which was also rejected by the Tribunal vide its Final Ord....