9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made taxable from 16.06.2005. Hence at the most only for the period from 16.06.2005 on ward, till September 2005 could there arise service tax liability on the said services and also for any other services provided by them which were not taxable earlier but were later brought into the net with effect from 16.06.2005. Regarding the inclusion of salaries paid by the appellant in taxable value it is seen that a number of Tribunal decisions have clearly held that staff salary and infrastructure expenses are required to be abated. Therefore, the value of services other than Security Agency Services cannot be included under the taxable value of the latter. Staff salary and infrastructure expenses cannot be included in the taxable value for de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCN dated 04.07.2006 was issued to the appellant proposing recovery of amount of ₹ 54,38,480/-, ₹ 9432/- and ₹ 24,682/- towards service tax on the mounts received by them during the period 2001-2002 to 9/2005, along with interest thereof and imposition of penalties. On adjudication vide Order-in-Original 16.04.2008 the proposals in the SCN were confirmed. Hence the appeal by the appellant. 3. During the hearing the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant Ms. Asmita A. Nayak submitted that the SCN and the demand is based on wrong surmise by the department that tall the service provided by appellant are in the nature of security agency services. She pointed out the security services was only one of the many service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence Security Vs Commr of CE, Vadodara [2010 (10) S.T.R. 270 (Tri,-Ahmd)] (vi) CCE C, Vadodara-I Vs Gujarat Intelligence Security (INDIA) [2011 (24) S.T.R. 167 (Guj)] (vii) Malabar Management Services Pvt Ltd., Vs C of ST, Chennai [2008 (9) S.T.R. 483 (Tri.-Chennai)] 5. On behalf of department, the Ld. AR, Mr. Arun Kumar reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant has declared in the Income Tax returns that the income is received from security services, and that therefore the demand is legal and proper. 6. Heard both sides. 7. From the submissions made before us and the documents adverted to by the counsel for appellant it is plain that the appellant did indeed provide services other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rson. The activities of collection of dues, etc., do not fall in the ambit of proving security to any property or person. Therefore, these activities are not covered by the levy of Service Tax. 8. It is further seen that out of the other services provided by appellant, manpower supply services was made taxable from 16.06.205. Hence at the most only for the period from 16.06.2005 on ward, till September 2005 could there arise service tax liability on the said services and also for any other services provided by them which were not taxable earlier but were later brought into the net with effect from 16.06.2005. 9. Regarding the inclusion of salaries paid by the appellant in taxable value it is seen that a number of Tribunal decisions h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
