9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company Ltd. (KIOCL) and were paying service tax on amounts received as consideration i.e., on the deployment charges from KIOCL. It was informed by the Directorate General of Audit, New Delhi that establishments availing security services from CISF are providing additional facilities and the appellant is not discharging the service tax on such expenses. It was noticed that the appellant is not discharging the service tax on the facilities such as medical expenses, vehicle, telephone, free accommodation provided, stationery expenses, etc., for the period from April 2009 to June 2012 as required under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 i.e., on the gross value of all the consideration received. They have also not declared this in their peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Port Officer: 2010 (257) ELT 37 (Guj.) * CCE, Kanpur vs. Kanpur Development Authroity: 2009 (16) STR 760 (Tri.-Del.) * Surat Municipal Corpn. Vs. CCE, Surant: 2006 (4) STR 44 (Tri.-Del.) * CST, Bangalore vs. Fruition Informatics (P) Ltd.: 2012 (282) ELT 30 (Kar.) * Central Industrial Security Force vs. CCE, Vadodara-I: 2014 (35) STR 845 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * Central Industrial Security Force vs. Commissioner of CE & ST, Surat: 2015 (39) STR 994 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * Central Industrial Security Force vs. CST, Visakhapatnam: 2014 (35)STR 961 (Tri.-Bang.) 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant and looking to the fact that appellant has paid the entire service tax along with interest, penalties under Sections 77 & 78 are also not imposable upon the appellant. 6. Based on the above observation O-I-O dated 15-2-2013 is upheld to the extent of service tax liability paid by the appellant along with interest. However, appellant's appeal with respect to imposition of penalties under Sections 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is allowed." 7. By following the ratio of the above said decision, I am also of the view that the penalty imposed vide the impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore, by resorting to Section 80, I waive the penalty imposed by the impugned order as there was no intention to evade payment of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
