CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL New Delhi PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. 3 [Arising out of OIO No. ALW-EXCUS-000-COM-004-19-20 dated 03.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Alwar]

Mining Engineer : Appellant Department of Mines & Geology Bharatpur Dist., Rajasthan Vs Commissioner of CGST-Alwar : Respondent A-Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar-301001 APPEARANCE:

Shri Ritul Patwa, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Shashank Yadav, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM :

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

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

FINAL ORDER No. 50145/2026 Date of Hearing:15.01.2026 Date of Decision:23.01.2026 HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA The present appeal is filed by Mining Engineer¹, Department of Mines & Geology, Rajasthan against the order in original Alw-Excus- 000-Com-004-19-20 dated 30.07.2019 wherein the demand of ₹3,47,87,620/-was confirmed.

2. The appellant is engaged in grant of mining leases for extraction and sale of minerals within Bharatpur district in Rajasthan. The appellant is also engaged in provisioning for the collection of dead rent, royalty, excess royalty etc. The department issued a show cause

1 the appellant notice dated 23.10.2018 alleging that the appellant was collecting royalty which was in the nature of rent for allowing the use of vacant land for mining purposes. Hence, the service tax was leviable under renting of immovable Property. The Commissioner passed the impugned order holding that such royalty payment or dead rent was akin to rent paid for use of vacant land and confirmed the duty along with interest and penalty. Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellant is before this Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the royalty and dead rent for Grant of mining rights are exempted under section 66D(a) of the Finance Act, 1994. He further submitted that the issue is no more res-integra and had been decided in favour of the appellant in their own case vide Final Order 52006-52027/2021 dated

25.11.2021.

4. Learned AR for the department reiterated the findings of the impugned order. He, however, conceded that the matter was decided in favour of the appellant.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AR for the department and perused the records. The issue for our consideration is no more res integra as the same stands covered by a decision of this Tribunal in appellant’s own case.

The relevant extract is reproduced herein after:-

“27. The issue to be decided is whether the assessee is liable to pay service tax under the category of "Renting of Immovable Property Services' falling within the definition of 'support services' for the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2016 on the royalty and dead rent collected in terms of mining lease agreements for grant of mining rights.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx 55. True, it may be that renting of immovable property is mentioned in the includes part of the definition of "support services. However, the said services of renting of immovable property has to be understood in the context of it being a support service provided by a Government to business entities. An activity of mere renting of immovable property by Government to business entities would fall within the definition of 'support service' and would be taxable. For example, renting of vacant land for the purpose of parking vehicles, renting of building for commercial purposes etc. would fall within the definition of 'support services provided by Government to business entities. This is because such services are in the nature which entities can carry out in ordinary course of operations by themselves. In other words, these are not services which can be provided exclusively by Government. The activity of lease of land solely for mining purposes is in the nature of exercise of sovereign right and is not a service that entities can carry out by themselves The service of renting of immovable proper