2008 (7) TMI 49 - AT - Service Tax

Security agency services - quantification of demand - contention is that for the assessment of service tax, amount received in respect of providing personnel such as sweeper, drivers, gardeners etc. should not be taken into consideration - appellant has produced copies of invoices showing that they are also receiving amounts in respect of supply of driver, gardeners etc. and is not covered under the security agency services appeal is allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against demand of Service Tax confirmed on the ground of providing security agency services and penalties imposed.
- Contention regarding quantification of demand, specifically related to providing security service along with other personnel and security of movable property.
- Dispute over the consideration of gross amount received from the client for security agency services.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the impugned order confirming the demand of Service Tax for providing security agency services and imposing penalties. The appellant's main contention was about the quantification of the demand, arguing that they also supplied personnel like gardeners, sweepers, and peons in addition to security services to the client. They claimed that the service regarding security of movable property was exempted during the disputed period. The lower authorities had considered the gross amount received from the client, which included payments for personnel and security services. The Revenue contended that the appellant had not provided evidence to support their claim, and since the appellant did not dispute their liability for Service Tax as security service providers, the burden of proof was on them to demonstrate that some amounts received were not for security services.

The appellant later produced copies of invoices showing that they received amounts for supplying drivers, gardeners, etc., which were not covered under security agency services. Based on this new evidence, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter to the lower authority for reconsideration. The impugned order was set aside, and the adjudicating authority was directed to decide afresh after giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard. The appeal was disposed of through remand, allowing for a fresh assessment of the situation.

This judgment highlights the importance of providing clear evidence to support claims in tax disputes and the significance of proper quantification of taxable services. It also emphasizes the need for a thorough review by the authorities when new evidence is presented, ensuring a fair and just decision-making process in tax matters.