SINGHANIA ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Singhania Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) filed the miscellaneous application for early hearing of their stay application as the interim stay granted by Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court will expire soon. They had filed the stay application No. ST/S/57977/2013 along their appeal No. ST/57373/2013 -CU[DB] against Order -in -Original No. C/RPR/ST/24/2013, dated 31 -1 -2013, in terms of which demand of Rs. 49,64,881/ - has been confirmed along with interest and penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 have also been imposed. It is seen that the adjudicating authority vide the aforesaid Order -in -Original has confirmed Service Tax demands of (i) Rs. 29,77,552/ - under Construction of complex service, (ii) Rs. 8,11,725/ - under renting of immovable property service and (iii) Rs. 11,75,604/ - under the transport of goods by road service. The appellants have essentially contended that the demand confirmed under the construction of complex service is not sustainable because they did not construct residential complex at all. Regarding the demand confirmed under renting of immovable property service, the appellants have contended that the renting was not for commercial purpose in as much as the flats were given on rent to Hidayatullah National Law University and/or Central Reserve Police Force to be used as a hostel by the former and as residences by the employees of the latter. Having regard to the appellants' prayer and the nature of the case and with the consent of the learned AR, we proceed to decide the appeal itself waiving the pre -deposit.

(2.) IT is seen that out of the amount of Rs. 29,77,552/ - confirmed under the category of construction of complex service, an amount of Rs. 8,81,135/ - relates to construction of load dispatch centre for Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and the remaining amount of Rs. 20,96,417/ - relates to construction of University of Kusha Bhau Thakre Patrakarita and Jansanchaar. For the sake of convenience the definition of construction of complex as given in Section 65(30a) of Finance Act, 1994 reproduced below:

(3.) COMING to demand confirmed under renting of immovable property service, it is seen that the appellants have contended that this rental income was against flats given on rent to Hidayatullah National Law University for being used as hostel and to CRPF for being used as residences for their employees. It is seen that under Section 65(zzzz) of Finance Act, 1994 renting of immovable property service is defined as under: