9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 608 - AT - Service TaxValuation of services - inclusion of value of non-monetary consideration (free accommodation, medical facilities, vehicle and telephone insurance and stationery and other expenses) in the taxable value or not - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The issue as to whether the aforesaid value of non-monetary consideration could be included in the taxable value has been decided in M/S. CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (CISF) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-I, PUNE 2021 (11) TMI 835 - CESTAT MUMBAI , following the decision of Supreme court in UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. VERSUS M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL CONSULTANTS AND TECHNOCRATS PVT. LTD. 2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that the Tribunal in the case of M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE S. TAX, DHANBAD 2021 (9) TMI 23 - CESTAT KOLKATA where it was held that Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, C.E. S.T., ALLAHABAD 2019 (1) TMI 1661 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , has already settled the issue in favour of the appellant to hold that expenses incurred towards medical Services, vehicles, expenditure on Dog Squad, stationery expenses, telephone charges, expenditure incurred by the service recipient for accommodation provided to CISF etc are not includible. The impugned order deserves to be set aside. It would, therefore, not be necessary to examine the issue relating to limitation. Appeal allowed.
Issues:
The judgment involves the following Issues: 1. Liability to pay service tax on non-monetary consideration. 2. Invocation of extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 73 of the Finance Act 1994. Issue 1: Liability to pay service tax on non-monetary consideration The appellant was alleged to have not discharged service tax on non-monetary consideration such as free accommodation, medical facilities, vehicle and telephone insurance, and stationery and other expenses for the period April 2009 to March 2012. The Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax with penalty and interest, which was partially allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), upholding the confirmation of demand of service tax with interest. The appellant challenged this portion of the order. Issue 2: Invocation of extended period of limitation The show cause notice dated 12.03.2014 invoked the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 73 of the Finance Act 1994. The appeal was filed to challenge the confirmation of demand of service tax with interest based on this extended period. The appellant argued that the value of non-monetary consideration should not be included in the taxable value, citing a decision in M/s. Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Pune. The authorized representative for the department acknowledged that the issue was covered by the Tribunal's decision in CISF, which relied on previous decisions to support the exclusion of certain expenses from the assessable value for service tax. The Tribunal, in line with the decision in CISF, held that expenses like medical services, vehicles, stationery, and free accommodation provided to CISF should not be included in the taxable value for service tax. The Tribunal noted that the legal position on this issue had been settled by previous judgments, including those of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the impugned order confirming the demand of service tax with interest was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
|
