9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax leviable thereon, subject to conditions. The Tribunal failed to note that the assessee produced invoices clearly indicating that the services provided by him were in a SEZ - As the Tribunal did not take note of these factual aspects while considering the application filed by the assessee for waiver of the predeposit and stay and straight away directed deposit of the entire assessed liability as a condition precedent, consequent upon which the appeal itself came to be dismissed thereafter owing to his failure to do so, we are of the opinion that the orders under appeal cannot be sustained and the Tribunal necessarily has to examine the matter afresh - matter on remand. - Central Excise Appeal No.47 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2017 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench. By the Order-in-Original No.51/2011 dated 31.10.2011, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Visakhapatnam-I, held that the service of providing security guards by the assessee was classifiable under Security Agency Services under Section 65 (105(w)) read with Section 65A of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. He accordingly determined that a sum of ₹ 1,62,49,414/- was payable by the assessee towards service tax upon such Security Agency Services during the period 2004-05 to 2008-09. The Commissioner further held that the services of housekeeping provided by the assessee were classifiable under Manpower Supply Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the Tribunal, being of the opinion that the assessee failed to produce any proof of the security guards provided by him being within a SEZ. As the assessee failed to make the deposit in terms of the aforestated order, the Final Order dated 06.08.2014 was passed by the Tribunal rejecting the appeal. Admittedly, the assessee used to provide security and manpower supply services to various organizations such as temples, educational institutions, residential apartments, hospitals, etc. It was his claim that he also provides such services in SEZ units and that the same were exempted from levy of service tax. Though the Commissioner looked into this aspect by taking up the instance of M/s. WS Industries, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon the additional documents filed in this appeal to demonstrate that the invoices which were produced before the Tribunal clearly indicated to the contrary. Our attention was drawn to various invoices raised by the assessee, which clearly recorded that services were provided in a SEZ. Being the final fact finding authority, the Tribunal necessarily had to look into all the material produced by the assessee before coming to the conclusion that the Commissioner had rightly rejected his claim for exemption of security and house keeping services in a SEZ in so far as service tax is concerned. However, as pointed out supra , the Tribunal failed to note that the assessee produced invoices clearly indicating that the services provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
