2020 (1) TMI 639

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... te formation service' to various clients. 2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to one contract given to them by M/s Arrow Infra Limited for supply of mud and spreading and dumping of earth on agricultural land. The said services were provided by the appellant during the period 01 October, 2007 to 31 March, 2008. Inasmuch the definition of 'site formation and clearance service, excavation, earth moving and demolition service does not include the service provided in relation to agriculture, irrigation etc., the appellant did not pay any service tax on the said services so provided by them to M/s Arrow Infra Limited. There is no dispute about the said fact, which is also accepted by the Revenue in the show cause notice as also in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on was an agricultural land. The activities undertaken by them were supply of mud and spreading and dumping the same in the agricultural land. The said activities were completed by them by March 2008 and as such their tax liability has to be assessed accordingly. There is no dispute that the land was agricultural land during the period of the service and was changed to industrial and commercial use only in 2009 onwards. As such it cannot be said that the services provided by them were in respect of land which was for commercial purpose during the relevant time. He also assails the impugned order on the point of limitation by submitting that the show cause notice issued on 22 April, 2013 is admittedly barred by limitation. He submits that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... upon which the mud was to be spread was admittedly agricultural land. Revenue has also not disputed the said fact. As per the definition of site formation and clearance etc, any activity done in relation to agriculture is excluded. Inasmuch as the services in the present case were provided in relation to agriculture, the same has to be held as exempted. Subsequent action by the owner of the land has got no relation to the activities done by the appellant prior to the said conversion. As such, we do not agree with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority that since the agricultural land was subsequently converted into commercial land, the activity undertaken by the appellant prior to the said conversion would become taxable subsequent to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X