2016 (8) TMI 1101 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - 1802 days - appellant is a Government department and had to seek prior approval from the higher authorities and the matter was also under consideration by the Ministry of Home Affairs, so the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time. Also were under the impression that the appeal filed against OIO No. 8/2011 dated 25.02.2011 would cover the issue involved in the present impugned order and hence, did not file a separate appeal against the impugned order. Held that - by following the decision of Tribunal in their own case 2013 (11) TMI 100 - CESTAT MUMBAI wherein the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal being satisfied with the very same reason and condoned the delay of 826 days, delay is condoned in this appeal also. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, liability to pay service tax on security agency service

Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay of 1802 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 67/2009 dated 28.10.2009. The appellant, a Government department, cited the need for prior approval from higher authorities and consideration by the Ministry of Home Affairs as reasons for the delay. It was argued that the delay was not deliberate but due to the impression that an appeal filed against a different order would cover the issue in the impugned order. The appellant relied on a Tribunal decision from Mumbai where a similar delay was condoned based on an ad hoc exemption order exempting Security Agency Service. The Tribunal, following the same ratio, condoned the delay and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.

Liability to Pay Service Tax on Security Agency Service:
The Revenue argued that as per the definitions in the Finance Act, the appellant's provision of security agency service falls under the purview of service tax liability on the charges collected from industrial undertakings belonging to the Government of India. However, the Tribunal, considering the appellant's reliance on the exemption order and the decision in the Mumbai case, concluded that there was no tax liability on the appellant for providing Security Agency Service. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the exemption granted by the Government.

This judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai dealt with the condonation of delay in filing an appeal and the liability to pay service tax on security agency service. The appellant, a Government department, sought condonation of a 1802-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to the need for approvals and the impression that another appeal covered the issue. Relying on a Mumbai Tribunal decision regarding an exemption order, the appellant argued for condonation, which was granted by the Tribunal based on the exemption order exempting Security Agency Service. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. The Revenue contended that the appellant was liable to pay service tax on security agency services based on the Finance Act definitions. However, the Tribunal, following the Mumbai case and the exemption order, found no tax liability on the appellant and allowed the appeal, citing the exemption granted by the Government.