2024 (5) TMI 816 - AT - Service Tax

Valuation of service - calculation of service tax - value of free housing/ accommodation facility provided by the appellant to the CISF personnel should be treated as additional consideration flowing to CISF and the value of such facilities need to be included in the service value or not - HELD THAT - The matter is no longer res Integra as this Tribunal in case of M/s. CISF V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Rajkot 2024 (4) TMI 391 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD has already decided the issue at hand in favour of the appellant. The impugned Order-In-Appeal is without any merit and the same aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the valuation of free housing/accommodation provided by the appellant to CISF personnel and whether such value should be included in the service value for the purpose of payment of Service Tax.

Valuation of Free Housing/Accommodation:
The appellant, holding Service Tax registration for various services, availed security services from CISF under an MOU. The department contended that the value of free housing/accommodation provided to CISF personnel should be treated as additional consideration flowing to CISF. A show cause notice was issued demanding Service Tax for the period July 2012 to March 2015. The charges were confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and the appeal was dismissed. However, a Tribunal order in a similar case favored the appellant, stating that expenses like medical services, vehicles, accommodation, etc., are not includible in the assessable value for Service Tax on a reverse charge basis.

Legal Precedents:
The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where it was held that expenses reimbursed to CISF for various facilities should not be added to the assessable value for Service Tax. The Tribunal cited cases where expenses like medical services, vehicles, accommodation, etc., were not considered as part of the taxable value. The Tribunal emphasized that expenses were reimbursed on an actual basis, as per the MOU with CISF, and there was no suppression or fraud to warrant the extended period of limitation invoked by the department. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the impugned Order-In-Appeal lacked merit and set it aside, allowing the appeal. The decision was based on the legal position established in previous judgments regarding the inclusion of expenses like free accommodation in the taxable value for Service Tax. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of actual reimbursement of expenses and the existence of a specific MOU with CISF to support its decision.