Activities performed by co-venturers in a joint venture to meet specific contractual obligations for a common objective do not constitute 'service' liable to service tax, as they are not services rendered to each other for consideration but are contributions to a shared enterprise.

In all the appeals, the issue is common. Therefore, all are disposed of by a common order.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in manufacturing and clearing of sugar and molasses and availing cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of inputs and input services and capital goods. An intelligence was gathered that the appellant is charging and receiving royalty amounts from their customers and not paying service tax on the royalty amounts during the period. Therefore, further investigation was conducted with M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. (SRSL) and the details were provided by SRSL. They have paid various amounts in the form of royalty. Further investigation conducted and it was found that the appellant is not paying service tax on the free supply of electricity and steam received by the appellant from SRSL, the amount paid by SRSL to the appellant for supply of bagasse which amount had been fixed by the State of Maharashtra and the Sugar Commissioner, sharing of power revenue, use of certain machineries, repairs and maintenance of machinery required to be done by SRSL and insurance charges incurred by them. In view of that, various show cause notices were issued to the appellant and the matters were adjudicated, demands proposed in the show cause notices were confirmed along with interest and penalties were also imposed for the period September 2011 to December 2013 and January 2014 to March 2015. Aggrieved from the said orders, the appellant is before us.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant owned 278 acres of land of which 117 aces was non-agricultural on which the appellant’s sugar mill was constructed. This sugar mill occupied approximately 25-30 acres of non-agricultural land which consisted of plant mill house, boilers, boiling house, powerhouse, hot and cold-water channel, material storehouse, administrative office building, spray pond etc. In 2003-04 the appellant along with several other sugar co-operative societies in Maharashtra became sick and could not crush sugarcane during the Sugar year 2004-05 due to drought and non-availability of sugarcane. In May 2005, the Government of Maharashtra and the Sugar Commissioner came to the rescue of such co-operative sugar factories considering the larger interest of member farmers, suppliers and workers and decided to revive the factory by permitting the appellant to give their factory on a lease basis to interested parties who possess the requisite expertise and experience in sugarcane crushing so as to help farmers and workers and also earned a fixed revenue to the factory from the said lease arrangement. Such permission was mandatory under the by-laws. Accordingly, looking to the needs of the farmer members, in order to make optimum utilization of its existing infrastructure by keeping in in use in avoiding rusting damage to plant and machinery and also to get enhanced crushing capacity and also to have a cogeneration facility installed in the factory premises, the Board of Directors and also in the Appellant's Special General Meeting held on 15/5/2005 unanimously resolved that the Appellant should enter into an arrangement or agreement for giving its industrial unit on a lease basis for the manufacture of sugar and other byproducts for a period of 6 years, i.e., from the crushing season 2005-06 to 2010-11 with a 3rd party which was able to utilise its crushing capacity to the optimum and provide for expansion. Thereafter the demand of service tax was raised for free supply of electricity by SRSL, free supply of steam, royalty payment for bagasse, sharing power revenue, use of certain machinery, repairs and