9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant and the CISF. The appellant are availing security services from Central industrial security force on the strength of MOU (memorandum of understanding) signed between the appellant and the CISF. 1.1 The appellants are paying Service Tax on the security services availed from CISF under reverse charge mechanism basis as provided under provisions of Rule 2 (1) (d) (i) (E) of the Service Tax Rules of 1994 read with Notification No. 30/2012 -ST dated 20.06.2012. It is a matter of record that as per the MOU entered between the appellant and the CISF the scope of service provided by CISF to the appellant is restricted only to supply of security personnel which is utilized by the appellant for the purpose of security of their premises. The appellants are making available accommodation, transport, etc facilities to CISF personnel deployed by CISF to the appellant during the period they remain deployed with the appellant. 1.2 An audit was carried out at the premises of the Appellant during 17.03.2015 till 30.05.2015 for the period April 2013 to September 2014. On the basis of the said audit, Final Audit Report 21.08.2015 was issued raising objections against the Appellant for the non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al accommodation need to be converted into money value and liable to service tax. The Appellants always knew the terms of said MOU, never arrived at proper valuation. Hence, the appellants have suppressed the facts and contravened the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and rules made thereunder. Therefore, extended period has been rightly invoked. Being aggrieved by the Impugned Order dated 25.09.2017 to the extent demand has been confirmed against the Appellant, the Appellant has filed the present appeal on the detailed grounds as mentioned in the appeal memo. 2. Shri Amber Kumrawat, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that the present matter has already been adjudicated in favour of the Appellant by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the identical case of NTPC LTD vs C.C.E. & S.T.- Surat-I. It is submitted that the charge for service tax is on providing taxable services by service provider to a service receiver. The assessable value is the "gross amount charged" by the service provider for the service provided by it. It is further submitted that for any value to constitute a consideration, whether monetary or otherwise it should flow from a servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Rajkot, 2024 (6) TMI 910 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD. CGST Vs Commandant CISF Unit 2019 (2) TMI 1175-CESTAT New Delhi SR. Commandant Central Industrial Security Force Vs CC 2023(4) TMI 872-CESTAT New Delhi Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Vs CCE 2021 (9) TMI 23-CESTAT Kolkata 3. Shri Anand Kumar, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that issue of valuation of free housing facility provided by the appellant to the CISF personnel is no longer res integra as this Tribunal vide it's Final Order No.11035/2024 dated 15.05.2024 in the appellant's own case NTPC Ltd vs. CCE & ST- Surat-I decided the issue in favour of the appellant, the relevant portion of which is extracted below : - " 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 ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t CISF, CISF Unit, 2019 (24) GSTL 232 (Tri- Delhi), has also held that free accommodation provided by the service recipient to CISF security personnel providing security services is not includable in taxable value. Service Tax Appeal No. 75020/2017 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 judgments, 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 authorizing such reimbursement of expenses which is not the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
