9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX ETC. VERSUS M/S. BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. ETC. [ 2018 (2) TMI 1325 - SUPREME COURT] , have held that free supplies would not form part of the total value for charging of Service Tax. It can be observed from the above decisions that in the case of other units of the same Appellant, identical issues were raised by the Appellant and in all these cases it has been held that the reimbursement expenses are not to be added to the gross value for arriving at the Service Tax payable. The Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules has been held as ultra vires by the Hon ble High Court and Hon ble Supreme Court. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There are force in the argument of the Appellant that the confirmed demand for the extended period is hit by time bar. The Appellant is a reputed Government of India Undertaking, working under the Ministry of Home Affairs. They cannot be said to have any intention to evade the Service Tax payment. Further, the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants Technocrats Pvt Ltd and Bhayana Builders Pvt Ltd would have given bonafide belief to the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nery expenses, telephone charges, etc., are being reimbursed by RINL on actual basis. There is no dispute on this count. She submits that this issue was before the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Intercontinental Consultants Technocrats Pvt Ltd [2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC)], wherein it has been held that Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules have gone much beyond the mandate under Section 67. Accordingly, the Hon ble Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Hon ble High Court which had held that Rule 5 was ultra vires the statutory provisions. As per this judgment, the reimbursements cannot be part of the total consideration for arriving at the Taxable Value. She further submits that identical issues were raised in respect of various other units of the same Appellant and the matters were decided at Tribunal level holding that reimbursement charges are not required to be added to the gross value for arriving at the Service Tax to be paid. She relies on the following case laws: i) CISF vs CC, CE ST, Allahabad [2019 (1) TMI 1661 CESTAT Allahabad] ii) CGST, CCE, Dehradun vs Commandant CISF Unit [2019 (2) TMI 1175 CESTAT New Delhi] iii) CISF vs CST-I, Pune [2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , stationery expenses, vehicle movement expenses, etc., from RINL. These amounts were not shown as part of the consideration and they are not included in the total value. Therefore, Service Tax payment was not made in respect of these amounts. In respect of accommodation provided to the employees of the Appellant by RINL, earlier the Appellant was paying HRA @20% of salary of their employees, which was subsequently stopped since the accommodation was being provided by RINL. The amount of 20% HRA saved by the Appellant is nothing but additional consideration received by the Appellant in terms of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, he submits that the Adjudicating Authority was correct in confirming the demands on merits. He further submits that Appellant never disclosed that they were getting reimbursements on several counts and also were getting additional consideration by way of rent free accommodation from RINL. Thus, there is a case of suppression on the part of the Appellant. Accordingly, he justifies the invocation of extended period. Finally, he submits that the Appeal is required to be dismissed. 9. Heard both sides and perused the Appeal papers and documentary e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uality of goods and the value of such goods can vary significantly. Such a value, has no bearing on the value of services provided by the service recipient. Thus, on first principle itself, a value which is not part of the contract between the service provider and the service recipient has no relevance in the determination of the value of taxable services provided by the service provider. [Emphasis supplied] 12. We also observe that the issue is no more res integra as identical issues were decided in respect of various other units of the same Appellant by various Benches of this Tribunal as under: a) In the case of CISF vs CC, CE ST, Allahabad [2019 (1) TMI 1661 CESTAT Allahabad], it has been held as under: On the emoluments paid to CISF, CISF was paying Service Tax. It appeared to revenue that certain other expenses incurred while receiving services by Airport Authority of India should be included in assessable value for the purpose of assessment. The said expenses were Medical Services, expenses on vehicles provided, expenditure on Dog Squad, Stationery Expenses, Telephone Charges, Expenditure incurred by Airport Authority of India on accommodation provided to CISF etc. The learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on [to] Section 67, is something which include any amount payable for taxable services provided or to be provided. The bare reading makes it clear that in case any amount is payable qua to CISF the accommodation being provided to the security personnels that it shall be the consideration. If it is consideration, then only Rule 3 [of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules] will come into picture. But as observed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide the Order under challenge that there is no evidence on the point about any amount either in terms of HRA was ever paid to the respondent/CISF, the question of notional value of the free accommodation provided cannot form the part of the gross value which has to be taxed under Section 67 of the Act. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the findings of Order under challenge. 8. Also coming to the aspect of limitation as has been raised by the respondent, we observe that the period of demand herein is w.e.f. April, 2009 to June, 2012. SCN is issued on 9-9-2014. It is clear that the entire period of demand is beyond the normal period of one year. The service provider herein is Government undertaking. Service recipient is also a public sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Delhi) = 2019-TIOL-1342-CESTAT-DEL, has also held that free accommodation provided by the service recipient to CISF security personnel providing security services is not includable in taxable value. We find that the Ld. Commissioner has merely confirmed the demand, in para 26 appearing in Page 25 of the impugned adjudication order, on the ground that the issue was pending for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd (Supra) and Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Private Limited (Supra), on the date of passing the impugned order. Since the issue is no longer res integra, as the legal position has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in both the above judgements, this Tribunal is bound by the said legal position. 4.3 In view of the above decision which is squarely on the same issue, we do not find merit in the impugned order and set aside the same. [Emphasis supplied] d) In the case of CISF vs CCE ST, Rajkot [2024 (4) TMI 391 CESTAT Ahmedabad], it has been held as under : The brief facts of the matter are that the appellant is an Armed Force of Union of India that discharges sovereign and statutory functions of providing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
