9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of the appellant. The impugned Order-In-Appeal is without any merit and the same aside - appeal allowed. - HON'BLE MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) , MR. SOMESH ARORA And HON'BLE MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) , MR. C L MAHAR Shri Amber Kumrawat learned Advocate for the Appellant Shri Anand Kumar, Superintendent ( AR ) , for the Respondent ORDER C. L. MAHAR The appellant have holding Service Tax registration for payment of Service Tax under various categories of services such as rent A cab service, consulting engineer service, manpower recruitment and supply agency service business support service, etc. The appellant are availing security services from Central industrial security force on the strength of MOU (memorandum of understanding) signed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de its order in original dated 04.02. 2016, whereunder all the charges invoked in the show cause notice has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant had approached learned Commissioner (Appeal). However, the appeal was dismissed by the learned Commissioner (Appeal) vide impugned Order-In-Appeal No. 40/ 2017-18 dated 29.09.2017. 4. We have heard both the sides and we find that the matter is no longer res Integra as this Tribunal Vide it's Final Order No. 10779/2024 dated 08.04.2024 in case of M/s. CISF V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Rajkot has already decided the issue at hand in favour of the appellant. The relevant extract of the above order is reproduced here below:- 2. It is matter of record t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng service tax on reverse charge basis on the cost of deployment, cost of arms and ammunition, cost of clothing items (uniforms), etc. which is not in dispute. We find that the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Central Industrial Security Force v Commissioner of Customs, C.E. S.T., Allahabad, Appeal No. ST/70293/2016-CU[DB] decided on 9th January, 2019, has already settled the issue in favour of the appellant to hold that expenses incurred towards medical Services, vehicles, expenditure on Dog Squad, stationery expenses, telephone charges, expenditure incurred by the service recipient for accommodation provided to CISF etc are not includible. Further, the Principal Bench at New Delhi in the case of Commr. of CGST, Cus C. Ex, De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
