9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. In the case of Central Industrial Security Forcev. Commissioner of Central Excise ST; CESTAT Ahmedabad [ 2024 (5) TMI 565 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] , it was held that 'the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhayana Builders Pvt Ltd [ 2018 (2) TMI 1325 - SUPREME COURT] , have held that free supplies would not form part of the total value for charging of Service Tax.' The issue is settled in as much as the expenses on various facilities provided by the appellant being a service recipient to the service provider M/s. Central Industrial Security Force is not includible in the gross value for charging service tax in terms of Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 - the impugned order is set-aside - Appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. C. L. MAHAR , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Munjaal Bhatt , Advocate for the Appellant Shri Himanshu P Shrimali , Superintendent ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR : The issue involved in the present case is that whether various facilities given to the service provider namely M/s. Central Industrial Security Force by the appellant such as barrack accommodation, medical expenses, lease accommodation, telepho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e charge mechanism. We find that in the very same issue much water has flown as this Tribunal has passed the order wherein it was held that the cost of various facilities provided by the service recipient to M/s. Central Industrial Security Force in the course of providing security service will not be included in terms of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, no demand of service tax in such a case will sustain. We refer some judgments as under:- (a) In the case of Central Industrial Security Forcev. Commissioner of Central Excise ST; CESTAT Ahmedabad - 2024 SCC OnLine CESTAT 340- following order was passed:- 3. We have heard both the sides. We find that the matter is no longer res-integra as this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs. CCE ST, Dhanbad reported under 2021-TIOL-551-CESTAT-KOL has decided the same issue pertaining to the appellant. The relevant extract of het above mentioned decision is reproduced below:- 7. We find that the issue to be decided is whether costs reimbursed by the appellant to CISF for medical telephone facilities, imprest expenses and notional value for rent free accommodation, free supply of rented vehicles, etc. are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation is concerned, we do not find any case of fraud or suppression and hence, the notice issued by invoking extended period is not sustainable. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order cannot be sustained and therefore, the same is set aside. The appeal is thus allowed with consequential relief. (b) Similarly, the Hyderabad bench of this Tribunal in the case of Central Industrial Security Forcev. Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam in the decision dated 10.05.2024 in Appeal No. ST/26170/2013passed the following order:- 10. The Appellants have been receiving reimbursements for various expenses like medical expenses, stationery expenses, etc., from RINL. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants Technocrats Pvt. Limited (cited supra), wherein it has been held as under: 31. In the aforesaid appeals, the issue is as to whether the value of free supplies of diesel and explosives in respect of the service of Site Formation and Clearance Service can be included for the purpose of assessment to Service Tax under Section 67 of the Act. These assessees had not availed the benefit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 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 learned representative has submitted that except medical expenses all other expenses are directly incurred by Airport Authority of India and they are not paid to CISF and are the expenses which are incurred by Airport Authority of India directly. He has further relied on the ruling by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Intercontinental Consultants Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC) and further submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) Allahabad has relied on the said ruling by Hon ble Supreme Court and held that such expenses cannot be included in the assessable value, in Order- in-Appeal No.367/2018 dated 26.10.2018. 2. 3. Having con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 sector undertaking. There cannot be a single good reason for either of the two to have an intent to evade the tax, there is otherwise no evidence by the Department to prove any positive act on part of the service provider which may amount as mens rea on the part of the provider to evade tax. Rather from the above discussion it is apparent that SCN was issued under notional presumption of free accommodation to be the part of consideration which otherwise was not the liability of the service provider in the given circumstances. Hence, to our opinion, there appears no case of any suppression or mis-representation of facts on part of the service provider (CISF). The Department had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 security to various industrial undertakings. The appellant is registered under Security Agency Service and has been discharging service tax liability on the cost of deployment of its forces, which included recurring and non-recurring expenditures. It is matter of record that the service of the appellant was hired by M/s. Reliance Industries Limited for providing protection and security to their industrial units. M/s. Reliance Industries Limited were paying to the appellant expenses such as salary and allowances, initial uniform and equipment charges and arms and ammunitions etc. The department is of the view that the appellant has not discharged their service tax liability corre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
