TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 981
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mplex, including commercial/industrial building or civil structures". During the course of audit, it was noticed that the appellant had developed the agriculture land by the name & style of Solitaire Industrial Park-II Project (SIP-11) at Bagru, Jaipur with the prior approval of the Jaipur Development Authority [JDA] under Section 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, vide its order dated 08.02.2013 for conversion of the land into residential, commercial & industrial forms. Thereafter, JDA had approved and released layout plan of the said industrial Park-II for developing and subsequent use for Industrial Residential Complex, Group Housing. EWS/LIG, Commercial purposes. 2. The appellant developed the site by way of landscaping, d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 [The Act] Penalties were also imposed upon the appellant under the provisions of Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned Order [Order-in-Appeal No.208 (BSM)ST/JPR/2022 dated 30.08.2022] rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the impugned Order, the appellant has filed this appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Heard Shri Agarwal Sanjiv and Ms. Neha Somani, learned Counsels for the appellant and Shri Aejaz Ahmad for the Revenue. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant emphasised that the project of the Industrial Park was approved by the JDA as per the statutory provisions and had it been a public road, no such approval would have been required. The Indu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue of Serial No 13(a) of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. As per Sl.No.13(a) of the Notification No.25/2012-Service Tax dated 20th June, 2012, the Services provided by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of a road, bridge, tunnel, or terminal for road transportation for use by general public is exempt from the payment of service tax and the service provider is not entitled to take the CENVAT Credit of Service tax on the exempted Services as envisaged under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 6. Considering the facts of the present case, we find that roads were constructed in the Solitaire Industrial Park and as per the Brochur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, exempted from payment of service tax in terms of Notification No.17/2005-ST dated June 7, 2005. The Tribunal held that the appellant have wrongly availed the exemption under the said notification observing as under: "5.3 Bare perusal clarifies that activity of construction of road which is meant for use by general public is exempted from whole duty. Admittedly appellant constructed car race track. Whether such track can be called as road for use by general public. What is exempted in the Notification No. 17/2005 is the service, as named in Entry No. 13 thereof, for construction of road for use of general public but not the services for constructing road simpliciter. Emphasis therein is on the word 'public'. "Public ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urse, drive, expressway, highway, lane, line, parking lot, pathway, pavement, roadway, route, street, subway, thoroughfare, track, trail, way." Seen from these definitions the race track constructed by appellant is definitely a "Road'. But to avail the benefit of the Notification no. 17/2005 appellant should have constructed a road meant for use of public i.e. a public road/place. The race track constructed by appellant is apparently and admittedly is not meant for public access as a matter of right. In the light of discussion about definition of public place above, we hold that though impugned race track is a road but public has no access as a matter of right thereupon. Hence we hold that the impugned race tracks are not meant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of Service Tax-Delhi-II, where the race tracks constructed by the appellant were claimed to be a road meant for public use, however, the Tribunal held that the appellant is not covered under Entry 13 of Notification No.17/2005, as the race tracks were not meant for public use. Issue being one of interpretation, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Revenue is not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation. The demand would, therefore, be sustainable only for the normal period. 9. We hereby, uphold the impugned order in so far as the issue on merits is concerned that the roads in question are meant for use of general public and are, therefore, exempted under ....