9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Rahul Agarwal (Advocate) - for Appellant Shri Mohd. Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) AR - for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the amount of EPF and ESI contribution which are reimbursed to them in the course of providing security agency services to their clients. 2. The brief facts as per the show cause notice dated 21 st April, 2006, relating to the period from 01 October, 2004 to 31 st March, 2005 is that the appellant is engaged in providing services related to security within the meaning of Section 65(105)(w) of the Finance Act, 1994. By their letter dated 22 nd February, 2001, appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss amount charged and realized. Accordingly, the show cause notice proposed to levy service tax on the amount of EPF and ESI contributions which were shown separately in the bills for the service charges. 4. The SCN was adjudicated on contest vide Order-in-Original dated 18 December, 2008 and the proposed demand was confirmed with equal amount of penalty under Section 78 and further penalty also levied under Section 76 alongwith interest. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order was pleased to set aside the penalty under Section 78 but however, confirmed the demand of service tax alongwith interest. The penalty under section 76 of the Act was reduced to ₹ 50,000/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Laxmi Construction Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Service Tax, Allahabad reported at 2016 (42) S.T.R. 561 (Tri. - All.). 7. The learned AR for Revenue have relied on the impugned order. 8. Having considered the rival contentions we are satisfied that the impugned order is in conflict with the law, as clarified by Hon ble Allahabad High Court in appellant's own case being Writ Petition No.437 of 1998 order dated 16 March, 1999. Following this clarification of Hon ble High Court, we hold that the PF and ESI contributions are statutory contributions and/or statutory levy and the same are deductible under the provisions of Section 67 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994. We find that the ruling of this Tribunal in Laxm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
