9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (T) [Order per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J)].- 1. The appellants M/s. Sudharson Security Bureau (SSB, short) had got themselves registered as 'Man Power Recruiting Agency' on 12-9-1997 and were paying service tax accordingly. After 'Security Agency' was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994 for the purpose of levy of service tax (16-10-1998), M/s. SSB were required to take fresh registration in this category and accordingly they obtained registration as a Security Agency on 22-11-1999. But they continued to pay service tax in the category of 'Man Power Recruiting Agency' from 16-10-1998 to 30-9-1999. As they felt that they were not liable to pay service tax in this category from 16-10-1998 to 30-9-1999, they claimed refund of the tax. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Government from the assessee as 'Security Agency'. The said amount of tax had been wrongly collected in the category of 'Man Power Recruitment Agency' and hence liable to be refunded. In the circumstances, the provisions of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, as applicable to service tax matters, were invocable. The learned counsel for the appellants has also fairly conceded the applicability of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act. Under this provision, as applied to the facts of this case, it was open to the original authority to deduct any amount of service tax payable by the assessee as 'Security Agency' from any amount of service tax refundable to him by reason of this amount having been wrongly collected in the category of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority rejected the assessee's contentions and confirmed the demand of service tax against them for the period 16-10-1998 to and imposed on them penalties of Rs.100 per day and Rs.1,08,781/- under Sections 76 and 78 respectively. The first appellate authority sustained the demand of service tax but set aside the penalties. The present appeal is against the demand of service tax. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they had filed periodical returns from the very beginning and that service tax was paid on the correct taxable value in accordance with Section 67(v) of the Finance Act, 1994. Their employees' wages and other reimbursable expenses were not includible in the taxable value as clarified by CBEC in respect of oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.T.R. 202 (Tri.-Chennai)}, wherein a similar case was remanded to the original authority. On the other hand, learned SDR relied on the Tribunal's decision in Punjab Ex-servicemen Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise , Chandigarh [2007 (5) S.T.R 214 (Tri.-Del.)], wherein it was held that the gross amount charged by 'Security Agency' from their clients was to be taken as the taxable value for the purpose of levy of service tax. 5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. The impugned demand is in the category of 'Security Agency'. It is on the sum of employees' wages and other reimbursable expenses which were incurred by the assessee in connection with the rendering of security services to clients but not i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
