2006 (3) TMI 8 - AT - Service Tax

Service Tax Security service Service recipient certificate and bills showed that services other than security service were provided Appellants not liable to pay service tax as security provider

Summary

Issues:
- Appellants providing Security Agency service
- Allegation of escaped assessment of services
- Contention regarding services provided not solely Security Services
- Demand for Service Tax, interest, and penalties
- Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
- Evidence presented by both parties
- Decision on the appeal

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the alleged escaped assessment of services provided by the appellants, who hold Service Tax Registration for Security Agency service. The Revenue claimed that services valued at Rs. 1,77,32,197/- had escaped assessment. The appellants argued that the amount collected did not solely relate to Security Services, as they also provided various other services not liable to Service Tax. The original authority demanded Service Tax, interest, and penalties, which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal for relief.

During the proceedings, the appellants' counsel highlighted that besides Security Guards, the appellants were engaged in various other works such as construction, electrical maintenance, water supply operations, and labor provision, which were not classified as Security Services. They presented evidence including a "Work Done Certificate" and bills indicating the nature of services provided, which did not include Security Services. The appellants also argued a violation of Principles of Natural Justice, citing cases where reliance on evidence collected post personal hearing was deemed unjust.

The Revenue, represented by the SDR, produced a letter from the Executive Engineer stating that Security Guards were provided by the appellants for watch and ward services. However, the Tribunal noted that the letter was not supplied to the appellants, constituting a violation of Natural Justice. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including the Work Done Certificate, bills, and the nature of services provided, concluding that the Revenue did not make a strong case against the appellants. As there was documentary evidence supporting the appellants' claims, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

In the final judgment pronounced on 8.3.2006, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the importance of adhering to Principles of Natural Justice and considering all documentary evidence presented during the proceedings.