9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Sh. K. Sivakumar (AR.) JUDGEMENT Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur; This stay application and appeal has been filed by appellant M/s. Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Vadodara Region, Gujarat against OIO No. 12/STC/Demand/Commr-I/2013 dt. 15/02/2013. The issue involved in this case is chargeability of service tax on Security Agency Services provided by the appellant to M/s. Indian Oil Corporatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating authority ought not to have imposed penalties under sec. 77 & 78 in view of sec. 80 of the Finance Act 1994. 3. Sh. K. Sivakumar (AR) on the other hand reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. 4. After hearing both sides and perusal of the records it is seen that adjudicating authority in paras 5.4 and 5.6 of the adjudication order has given the following observations. 5.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion granted to them vide Ad-hoc Exemption Order No. 1/1/2011, dt. 01.07.2011 issued from F.No. 137/14/2008-CX.4. However, M/s. CISF are liable to pay Service Tax from the month of 01.04.2009 onwards. 5.6- I find that M/s. CISF have during the months of April, 2009 and May, 2009, collected taxable value of Rs. 136.04 lakhs and service tax liability on the said taxable value comes to Rs. 17,40,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty under Sec. 78 of the Finance Act 1944 is not imposable upon the appellant. Further as per Sec. 80 of the Finance Act, 1944, as claimed by the appellant and looking to the fact that appellant has paid the entire service tax along with interest, penalties under Sec. 77 & 78 are also not imposable upon the appellant. 6. Based on the above observation OIO dt. 15/02/2013 is upheld to the extent of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
