TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service provided to any particular individual for consideration - In these circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in imposing a requirement of deposit of an amount of ₹ 4,88,48,874/- The Appellant is a statutory body - But apart from that, the question as to whether the Appellant carries on the business of rendering services relating to the security of any property including the business of providing security personnel is a serious triable question - Consequently an order for pre-deposit was not warranted in the circumstances of the case. - 119 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2011 - DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. JUDGMENT Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. On the request of Counsel appearing on behalf of the Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the employment of private security guards employed in factories and establishments in the State of Maharashtra and for making better provisions for their terms and conditions of employment and welfare, through the establishment of a Board. The Board has been constituted under Section 6. Under Section 3, the State Government has been empowered to frame a scheme to ensure an adequate supply and full and proper utilization of Security Guards in factories and establishments, and generally for making better provisions for the terms and condition of employment of such workers. The Board under sub-section (1) of Section 8 is responsible for administering the scheme and is statutorily required to exercise such powers and to perform and discharge s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manner and includes the services of investigation, detection or verification, of any facts or activity, whether of personal nature or otherwise, including services of providing security personnel. 7. Prior to the amendment, the Respondents called upon the Board to pay service tax of ₹ 17,91,27,953/- for the period from 16 October 1998 to 31 March 2003. In an appeal filed by the Appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 20 March 2006 held that the Board was not engaged in providing any security service and was not a commercial concern, and hence was not covered by the definition of Security Agency under Section 65 (94) of the Finance Act, 1994. A similar view was taken in an order of the Commissioner (ADJ) Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Excise and Customs on 18 December 2006 which clarified that activities performed by the sovereign/public authorities under the provisions of law are in the nature of statutory obligations of a mandatory nature and do not attract the payment of service tax; (iv) The Appellant is a statutory Board and a prima facie case having been made out, a complete waiver ought to have been granted. 9. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the Respondent that (i) All the submissions of the Appellant have been fully considered by the CESTAT which has directed a deposit of only 50% of the demand; (ii) The Appellant prima facie does fall within the definition of the expression 'Security Agency' under Section 65(94) as amended with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that, the Appellant recovers an amount representing 5% which is a levy for administering the scheme. The Central Board of Excise and Customs has in its circular dated 18 December 2006, clarified a doubt which had arisen as to whether, activities which are rendered by a sovereign/public authority which is required to perform activities can be considered as a provision of service for the purpose of the levy of tax. The Board clarified that it is of the view that activities performed by sovereign/public authorities under the provisions of law are in the nature of statutory obligations which are to be fulfilled in accordance with law. The fee collected by them is for performing such activities and is deposited in the Government Treasury. Such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|