CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. III Service Tax Appeal No.52792 of 2019 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No.ALW-EXCUS-000-COM-038-18-19 dated 11.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Alwar ]

M/s. Sesame Foods Pvt. Ltd., …APPELLANT SP-20, RIICO Industrial Area, Neemrana District, Alwar, Rajasthan.

Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, …RESPONDENT ‘A’ Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar-301 001 (Rajasthan).

APPEARANCE:

Shri Shivam Bansal, Advocate for the appellant Shri Aejaz Ahmad, Authorised Representative for the Revenue.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON'BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO.50155/2026 DATE OF HEARING/DECISION: 20.01.2026 BINU TAMTA:

1. The issue for consideration relates to transfer of Land Development Rights, which involves transfer of title of ‘immovable property’ and therefore, stands excluded from the definition of ‘service’ under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the issue is no longer res integra and has been decided in series of decisions as under:-

(a) DLF Commercial Projects Corporations vs.

Commissioner of Service Tax, Gurugram (b) M/s Genius Probuild Private Limited vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Rajasthan (c) Sadoday Builders Private Limited vs. Jt. Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and ors.

(d) Chheda Housing Development Corporation vs.

Bibijan Shaikh Farid and others

2. Shri Aejaz Ahmad , learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue very fairly agrees that the issue stands concluded by the aforesaid decisions in favour of the appellant.

3. The same Bench has also considered the issue in the following cases:-

(a)Vineera Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ADG, DGGSTI, New Delhi (b) Commissioner of CGST, Dehradun Vs. Brahma Raina (c ) Genius Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Jaipur, Final Order No.51368/2025 dated 25.09.2025

4. Considering the facts of the present case, we find that the appellant had entered into a lease agreement on May 21, 1999 with Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation for taking on lease of 99 acres, a vacant industrial

1 2019 (27) GSTL 712 (Tri.-Chan.) 2 2025-VIL-1636-CESTAT-Del-ST

3 2011 SCC Online Bom. 760

4 2007 (3) Mh. L.J. 402

5 Final Order Nos.51710-51725/2025 dated 12.11.2025

6 Final Order No. 51596/2025 dated 10.10.2025

land admeasuring 20,000 sq.mtrs for setting up of 100% Export Oriented Unit, however, the same was shut down on account of business conditions. The appellant then entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with SR Developers on August 16, 2013 to set- up a commercial establishment consisting of shops, showrooms and other commercial units on the said land. In terms of the agreement, the appellant agreed to transfer exclusive rights to SR Developers for the development for the project land. Under Clause VIII(iv) and (v) of the Development Agreement, exclusive right to lease/rent/licence/cell, constructed units vested with SR Developers and the monitoring realization thereof were to be divided between the appellant and the developers in the ratio of

33:67 respectively.

5. Show cause notice dated July 11, 2018 was issued to the appellant on the basis of an inquiry conducted against SR Developers, who informed about the joint venture with the appellant for setting up of the project titled as ‘Shree Ram Plaza’. Consequently, demand of service tax of Rs.3,77,68,245/- was made on the appellant along with interest and penalties on the transfer of development rights to SR Developers. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed by the impugned order. Hence the present appeal has been filed.

6. Since the issue on such transfer of land development rights has been held to be not chargeable to service tax, we are of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. Before parting with the present order, we would like to refe