9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed. - HON'BLE MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) , MR. RAMESH NAIR And HON'BLE MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) , MR. C L MAHAR Shri Jigar Shah , Advocate for the Appellant Shri Anand Kumar , Superintendent ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The brief facts of the case are that in EA 2000 audit of the appellant s record, one of the issue raised in the audit report was that CISF while providing the security service and charging for the security charges was not charging House Rent Allowance (HRA) for their employee as part of salary as they were availing housing/ accommodation facility provided by the appellants. Hence, the housing/accommodation facility shall be treated as additional consideration and service tax was payable on the same. The audit objection was converted in issuance of show cause notice dated 22.09.2015 proposing to demand service tax of Rs. 13,02,202/- for the period July, 2012 to March, 2015. Matter relating to above show cause notice has been decided by this CESTAT Ahmedabad reported at NTPC Ltd vs. CCE ST , Surat 2024 (5) TMI 816- CESTAT. Subsequently, the show cause notice for the period April, 2015 to June 2017 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) in a case where the provision of service is for a consideration not wholly or partly consisting of money, be such amount in money, with the addition of service tax charged, is equivalent to the consideration; (iii) in a case where the provision of service is for a consideration which is not ascertainable, be the amount as may be determined in the prescribed manner. (2) .. (3) .. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), the value shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- 4[(a) consideration includes- (i) any amount that is payable for the taxable services provided or to be provided; (b) . (c) gross amount charged includes payment by cheque, credit card, deduction from account and any form of payment by issue of credit notes or debit notes and 2[book adjustment, and any amount credited or debited, as the case may be, to any account, whether called Suspense account or by any other name, in the books of account of a person liable to pay service tax, where the transaction of taxable service is with any associated enterprise. Since the demand was proposed alongwith Rule 3 of Determination of Value R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 mensrea 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 no occasion to provisio to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 for invoking the extended period of limitation. Seeing from this angle, SCN is hit by the principle of limitation. 9. In view of entire above discussion, the Order is opined to have no infirmity. Appeal stands dismissed. The similar view has been taken by the principle bench of this tribunal at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant to CISF for medical telephone facilities, imprest expenses and notional value for rent free accommodation, free supply of rented vehicles, etc. are to be added to the assessable value for payment of service tax on reverse charge basis. The appellant is already depositing 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, Dehradun vs Commandant CISF, CISF Unit, 2019 (24) GSTL 232 (Tri- Delhi), has also held that free accommodation provided by the service recipient to CISF security personnel provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. We also note that in the Tribunal decision in the case of Impact Communications (Supra) which has been heavily relied by the Ld. A/R for the Revenue, the demand was confirmed for the reason that the reimbursement was not claimed on actual basis and that there was no pre- arrangement with the client for authorising such reimbursement of expenses which is not the case herein inasmuch as there is a specific MOU agreed with the CISF as also appearing in the appeal pape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant to CISF for medical telephone facilities, imprest expenses and notional value for rent free accommodation, free supply of rented vehicles, etc. are to be added to the assessable value for payment of service tax on reverse charge basis. The appellant is already depositing 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, Dehradun vs. Commandant CISF, CISF Unit, 2019 (24) GSTL 232 (Tri- Delhi), has also held that free accommodation provided by the service recipient to CISF security personnel provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
