9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 182 - AT - Service TaxSecurity Services - SCN issued in continuation to earlier demand-cum show cause notice dated 23.12.2013 for the period 2011-12 since the grounds relied upon are the same - HELD THAT - The proceedings initiated through show cause notice dated 23.12.2013 issued for the period 2011-12 ultimately reached this Tribunal and the same were considered along with two other proceedings initiated against the same appellant for the financial year 2006-07 to 2010-11 and all the three appeals were decided through a common Final Order in M/S. FEDERAL SECURITY PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, LUCKNOW 2018 (9) TMI 1918 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD - Both sides have agreed that the issue involved in the present proceedings which are for the financial year 2012-13 are squarely covered by the said case M/S. FEDERAL SECURITY PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, LUCKNOW 2018 (9) TMI 1918 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD where it was held that providing of cash van service with security guard is covered under cash van service‟ and cannot be termed as security services‟ as the dominant service is transportation of cash from one place to another through these cash vans. Therefore, the appellants are not liable to pay differential Service Tax under the category of security service‟. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal upholding Order-in-Original demanding service tax and imposing penalty for financial year 2012-13 - Whether demand justified based on earlier show cause notice - Whether issue covered by previous Tribunal decision. Analysis: The appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal upholding an Order-in-Original demanding service tax and imposing a penalty for the financial year 2012-13. The appellant provided 'Security Services' and cash van services to a bank. The show cause notice dated 14.10.2015 was issued based on an earlier notice for the period 2011-12. The demand was for around ?81 lakhs due to discrepancies in balance sheet figures and service tax payments. The Order-in-Original confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of around ?8 lakhs, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. Upon hearing both sides, it was noted that the issue was covered by a Final Order dated 19.09.2018, which considered similar proceedings against the appellant for the financial years 2006-07 to 2011-12. The Tribunal agreed with the parties that the issue for the financial year 2012-13 was covered by the said Final Order. The Final Order highlighted discrepancies in figures between bank statements, profit and loss accounts, and ST-3 returns, leading to the allegation of short payment of service tax on 'security services'. The Tribunal's decision in Final Order No.71780-70782/2018 dated 27.07.2018 was referenced, emphasizing the distinction between 'security services' and 'cash van services' based on the dominant service provided. Relying on the precedent set by the Tribunal, it was held that the appellant's main service was providing cash van services rather than 'security services'. Drawing parallels with a previous case involving excess baggage charges, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not liable to pay differential service tax under the category of 'security services'. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The appellant was entitled to relief as per law. The Tribunal pronounced its decision on 29 November 2019.
|
