2018 (5) TMI 1823

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ration before this Tribunal in the case of THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE JODHPUR, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR [2016 (12) TMI 289 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the police department, which is an agency of the State Govt., cannot be considered to be a person engaged in the business of running security services. Consequently .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s against the Order-in-Appeal No.162-163/2014 dated 25.07.2014. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an agency of the M.P. Government. The police department provided police guard for currency chest of various bank branches, financial institutions and also other Central and State organizations and public enterprises. For providing such security guards, Police Department was collect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mmissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jaipur-I, Final Order Nos.55321-55348/2016 dated 25.11.2016, wherein it was observed that: 13. On the basis of the above discussion, we conclude that police department, which is an agency of the State Govt., cannot be considered to be a person engaged in the business of running security services. Consequently, the activity undertaken by the police .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X