9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, vide Show Cause Notice No. 2089/2019 dated 16.04.2019 an amount of Rs.3,67,83,756/- is proposed to be recovered as service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism towards receiving the security agency services. Proportionate interest and appropriate penalties were also proposed vide the said show cause notice. The proposal has been confirmed vide the order under challenge. While adjudicating the said proposal the original adjudicating authority vide the impugned order, has confirmed the service tax demand for an amount of Rs.2,22,21,911/- with proportionate interest and the appropriate penalties on the said amount however the demand for an amount of Rs.1,45,61,845/- i.e the demand for the period prior 14.05.2015 has been dropped. 2. We have heard Shri Vikas Agarwal and Shri Manish Sachdeva, learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant and Shri Manoj Kumar, learned Authorized Representative for the department. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has mentioned that the demand has wrongly been confirmed as has been passed without appreciating the factual and the legal possession in proper perspective. It is impressed upon that the appellant has discharged the service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the balance sheet of companies is a publically available document. The decision of this tribunal in the case of Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd. Vs. CCE reported as 2005 (192) ELT 415 (Tri.) is relied upon. The show cause notice is alleged to have been barred by time. With these submissions, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. While rebutting these submissions learned Departmental Representative has pointed out that in written submission dated 10.05.2019 given by the appellant to the department there is an acknowledgment on part of the appellant that while CISF procure the arms and ammunition, the appellant pays the Ministry of Home Affairs for such procurement by CISF. Though there is no documentary evidence of this transaction but the admission is sufficient to show that arms and ammunitions were not freely supplied to the service provider. Otherwise also, the financial statement of the appellant depicts the expenditure made against such supplies in the name of CISF which negates the appellant contention that the impugned charges are not in the nature of incurring reimbursable expenditure. Therefore, Rule 5 of Valuation Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supply will not constitute a monetary consideration remitted by the service recipient to service provider for providing a service. The Larger Bench of this tribunal has given a categorical finding vis-avis non-inclusion of value of freebies in the amount of consideration in the decision titled as Bhayana Builders and Ors. Vs. CST, Delhi and Ors. reported as 2013 (9) TMI 294 CESTAT DELHI (LB). 5.3 Now coming to the aspect of including reimbursable expenses in the assessable value and the applicability of Rule 5 of Valuation Rules, 2006. This provision was challenged to the extent it includes reimbursement of expenses in the value of taxable services for the purpose of levy of service tax. The provision was also challenged on the ground that it is ultra vires the provisions of Section 66 and 67 of the Act. Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding a case titled as Union of India Vs. Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC) has held that Section 66 of the Finance Act levies tax only. On taxable services on construing the provisions of Section 66 and 67(i) together and harmoniously, it is clear that the value of taxable services shall be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E reported as 2023 (4) TMI 872-CESTAT NEW DELHI (iii) Central Industrial Security Force Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Allahabad reported as 2019-TIOL-3277-CESTAT-ALL (iv) The Assistant Commandant CISF Unit KIOCL Mangalore Vs. CCT reported as 2019 (11) TMI 681-CESTAT BANGALORE (v) M/s. Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Pune reported as 2021 (11) TMI 835 - CESTAT MUMBAI In appellant's own case (for the period April 2016 to June 2017) involving another unit at Doromalai, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held in favour of the appellant. The copy of the Order-in-Appeal No. BEL-EXCUS-000-APP-MSC-089-2020-21 dated 21.12.2020 is enclosed as part of the paperbook. Seen from these decisions also, the demand in question is liable to be set aside. 5.5 Coming to the issue of invocation of extended period of limitation. From the entire above discussion, we have already concluded that the appellant is wrongly made liable for payment of the impugned amount of demand. There can be no reason with the appellant to not to pay the service tax liability with an intent to evade the duty. There have already been several decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
