2026 (7) TMI 1357

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch he dropped the proceedings initiated by show cause notice dated 30.04.2020 [SCN] issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence [DGGI] covering the period April 2016 to June 2017 and demanding service tax of Rs. 10,50,32,991/- under the proviso to section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 [the Act] along with interest under section 75 of the Act and penalties under section 77 and 78 of the Act. In the impugned order, the proceedings against M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. [the respondent] have been dropped. 2. We have heard learned authorized representative for the department and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 3. The respondent is a public sector undertaking and is the largest producer of steel i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respondent. The show cause notice was issued accordingly demanding service tax invoking extended period of limitation, interest and penalties. The respondent resisted the proposals in the show cause notice. The case of the respondent is that it was not assigned any right to use a natural resource by the Government but it had bought water from the Government for use in its plant. Therefore, the nature of transaction between the Government and the respondent is one of sale of water and, therefore, no service tax is payable by the respondent on the water purchase by it from the Chhattisgarh Government. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the issue is no longer res-integra and it has been decided in the following decisions th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2017] Affirmed by the Supreme Court in [2018 (16) GSTL J80 (S.C.)] (j) M/s Rosemerta Technologies Ltd. versus C.C. [2019 (11) TMI 1573 - CESTAT, Chandigarh] Affirmed by the Supreme Court in [2023 (385) ELT 808 (S.C.)] 6. In paragraph 18.12 of the impugned order, the Commissioner recorded that the issue involved in this case is identical to the one decided by the Commissioner in order dated 14.07.2016 for an earlier period which order has been accepted by the Department on merits. He, therefore, dropped the demand proposed in the show cause notice. 7. Aggrieved, the department filed this appeal disputing that the agreement entered into between the respondent and the Chhattisgarh Government was the sale of water. It is asserte....