9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LD THAT:- Issue is no longer res-integra as relying on Bharat Coking Coal Ltd [ 2021 (9) TMI 23 - CESTAT KOLKATA] and NTPC LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. E-BHARUCH [ 2024 (10) TMI 1130 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - Hence the intrinsic value of the rent for the accommodation provided by the appellant to the service provider M/s CISF is not includible in the gross value of security service, therefore, demand thereon is not sustainable. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed. - HON'BLE MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) , MR. RAMESH NAIR And HON'BLE MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) , MR. RAJU Shri S. Suriyanarayanan , Advocate appeared for the Appellant Shri N. G. Makwana , Superintendent ( Authorized Representative ) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd.- 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC) CST Vs. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd.- 2018 (10) GSTL 118 (SC) Commr. of CGST Vs. Commandant, CISF Unit-2019 (24) GSTL 232 (T) Central Industrial Security Force Vs. CCE ST-2019 (1) TMI 1661 - CESTAT Order No.10779/2024 dated 8.4.2024 passed by Hon'ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad in case of Central Industrial Security Force 3. Shri N. G. Makwana, learned Superintendent (Authorised Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. We find that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res-integra as the same has been decided in the various judgments whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the show cause notice. The matter has been adjudicated by learned Principal Commissioner vide his order dated 21.01.2016 where under all the charges as invoked in the show cause notice have been confirmed. 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 CoalLimited vs. CCE ST, Dhanbad reported under 2021-TIOL 551- CESTAT-KOL has decided the same issue pertaining to the appellant. The relevant extract of the 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 supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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/Rfor the Revenue, the demand was confirmed for the reason that there imbursement 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 case herein inasmuch as there is a specific MOU agreed with the CISF as also appearing in the appeal paper book. There is no dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovider are not includable in the assessable value. We also note that Hon ble Supreme Court has upheld the said decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court and held that Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 authorizes only such consideration which is received by the service provider for assessment of service tax. By following the said ruling of Hon ble Supreme Court we hold that the impugned order is not sustainable. 4. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. From the above decisions, it is seen that the demand raised by the Department is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 4.2 We further observed that the appellant are not liable to pay service tax on the value of accommodation, vehicles for transportation, telephone fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenditure 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 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 (Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
