TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ], 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. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 86125 of 2017 - A/87119/2021 - Dated:- 9-11-2021 - HON BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND HON BLE MR. AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri N. Anand, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri Nitin M. Tagade, Joint Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER: SANJIV SRIVASTAVA This appeal is directed against Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e taxable value for payment of service tax in respect of the services rendered by them. 2.3 A show cause notice dated 20.09.2013 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why: (a) An amount of ₹ 2,50,87,700/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred only) should not be included in Gross value of taxable services rendered by them in terms of Section 67(1)(ii) of the Act. (b) Service Tax (including Education Cess and Secondary Higher Education Cess) amounting to ₹ 26,74,869/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Nine only) payable on the Gross value of Services provided under the category of Security Agency Services as computed at (a) above sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.3 I also order recovery of interest at the appropriate rate(s), as applicable during the relevant period, on the demand of service tax as confirmed at para 37.2 above, under the provisions of Section 75 ibid. 37.4 I also impose a penalty of ₹ 26,74,869/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Nine only) on the assessee i.e. M/s. Central Industrial Security Forces, Pune, under the provisions of Section 78 ibid. However, since penalty is being imposed on the assessee under Section 78, I do not propose to impose any penalty on them under Section 76 ibid, in view of the provisions of fifth proviso to Section 78 ibid. 38. I also give an option to the assessee i.e. M/s. Central Industrial Security For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts 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 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 = 2019-TIOL-3277-CESTAT-ALL, has already settled the issue in favour of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorising 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 in the entire case proceedings that expenses have been reimbursed on actual basis. Hence, the contentions of the Revenue cannot be accepted. In so far as the issue of extended period of 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. 4.3 In view of the above decision which is squar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
