2016 (4) TMI 110 - AT - Service Tax

Whether the vacant land in possession of the appellant is excluded from the renting of immovable property as defined in Section 65(90a) and from the definition of taxable service as per Section 65 (105) (zzzz) if the vacant land is given for rent for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 - Appellant leased/rented out the vacant land to private parties for carrying out their business activity - Held that - the same issue of the same assessee and for the same period was decided by the Tribunal in the favour of assessee. By relying on the same case reported in 2015 (10) TMI 1736 - CESTAT MUMBAI , the vacant land in possession of the appellant is excluded from the renting of immovable property as defined in Section 65(90a) and from the definition of taxable service as per Section 65 (105) (zzzz) if the vacant land is given for rent. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues: Whether vacant land leased out by the appellant for business activities falls under the definition of taxable service as per Sections 65(90a) and 65(105)(zzzz).

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Goa, regarding the taxation of vacant land leased by the appellant for business activities. The Tribunal considered whether the leased vacant land should be excluded from the definition of 'renting of immovable property' and 'taxable service' as per the relevant sections. It was noted that the leased plots of land had harbor facilities, leading the adjudicating authority to conclude that they did not fall under the exclusion. The period of dispute was from 01/04/2009 to 31/03/2010. The Tribunal referenced a previous case involving the same appellant for the period 01/06/2007 to 28/02/2009, where a similar issue was decided in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the issue in the current appeal was the same as the previous one, where the bench had already allowed the appellant's appeal and rejected the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was unsustainable, set it aside, and allowed the appeal.