9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cates that the appellant will be liable to compensate in full the losses to the BSNL on account of any theft/burglary – tribunal upheld that the activity is falling within the category of security agency service liable to tax – demand and interest upheld – penalty set aside – however matter remanded to recalculate the demand after extending the cum-tax benefit. - ST/550/2006-CUS(BR) - ST/115/2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- under Section 75 of the Act. 2. Ld. Advocate submits that the demand was raised on the basis of audit objection. He submits that by letter dated 6-4-2007, they requested BSNL to provide information about the services of helper and gunman. It is contended by the ld. Advocate that they had rendered other than security services in the premises of BSNL. He submits that the tax will be leviable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the BSNL. There is no material placed by the appellant that the security men were used for other purposes. So, we do not find any force in the submission of the ld. Advocate. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there is no mala fide on the part of the appellant. We also noted that the appellant provided security men to the BSNL, which is a Public Sector Undertaking. In view of that, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
