9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not the provider of the impugned service. Though the service was rendered by State Government and not by the appellant, the appellant has fairly made a good case in its favour but not entirely so. Therefore, make pre-deposit of 7.5% of the impugned service tax liability. - stay granted partly. - Stay application No. ST/S/52913/2014, Appeal No.ST/52398/2014 - - - Dated:- 15-12-2015 - S K Mohan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in terms of the judgment of CESTAT in the case of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. CESTAT vide final order no. 53354-53355/14 dated 28/8/2014 has observed that premium charged for lease is not liable to service tax under Renting of Immovable Property Service. (4) The leasing of vacant land became liable to service tax only w.e.f. 1/7/2010 while two installments of payments am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose of charging service tax under Renting of Immovable Property Service and this has been so held in the case of CIDCO Ltd. Vs. CST - 2014-TIOL-1368-CESTAT-MUM , Mumbai. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. 5. It is seen that the lease agreement was signed between State Government through Collector and M/s. Deep Mala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and the appellant is no whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as premium was towards the leasing of the property including for continuous enjoyment thereof and therefore prima facie the Premium in the present case seems to be qualitatively of a different nature than what is referred to as premium in the judgment of CESTAT in the case of Greater Noida Industrial Development Corp. (Supra). In this regard, the judgment of CESTAT in the case of CIDCO (Supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
