2013 (11) TMI 100 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Held that - In view of the ad-hoc exemption order no. 1/1/2011 dated 01/07/2011 exempting Security Agency Service rendered by the appellant, there is no tax liability on the appellant. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and also allow the appeal by extending the exemption granted by the Government - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal
2. Service tax demand confirmation against Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)
3. Exemption granted by the Government

Delay in filing the appeal:
The appeal, stay application, and COD application were filed against Order-in-Original no. 15/ST/2009 dated 25/09/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik. There was a delay of 826 days in filing the appeal due to the appellant being a Government department needing prior approval from higher authorities and consideration by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Service tax demand confirmation against CISF:
The impugned order confirmed a service tax demand of Rs.3,33,47,243/- against the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), India Security Press, Nasik. The Commandant of CISF Unit, Nashik, cited an exemption order issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, exempting taxable services provided by CISF in relation to security agency service during a specific period. This exemption covered the period of the demand, rendering the tax liability on the appellant null.

Exemption granted by the Government:
The Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue acknowledged that the appellant's activity had been granted exemption retrospectively for the period 1998 to 2009. Due to the ad-hoc exemption order dated 01/07/2011 exempting Security Agency Service rendered by the appellant, the tax liability was eliminated. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the appeal was allowed by extending the exemption granted by the Government. The stay application was also disposed of.

In conclusion, the delay in filing the appeal was justified by the need for governmental approvals, and the exemption granted by the Government exempted the appellant from the service tax demand, leading to the appeal being allowed and the stay application being disposed of.