TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ION OF INDIA AND ANR. VERSUS M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL CONSULTANTS AND TECHNOCRATS PVT. LTD. [ 2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that the Tribunal in the case of M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE S. TAX, DHANBAD [ 2021 (9) TMI 23 - CESTAT KOLKATA] where it was held that Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, C.E. S.T., ALLAHABAD [ 2019 (1) TMI 1661 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD ], 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 accommodatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the appellant was set aside but the confirmation of demand of service tax with interest was upheld. This appeal has accordingly, been filled to assail that portion of order of Commissioner (Appeals) that confirms the demand of service tax with interest. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue as to whether the aforesaid value of non-monetary consideration could be included in the taxable value has been decided in M/s. Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Pune [2022 (11) TMI 835 CESTAT MUMBAI , following the decision of Supreme court in Union of India and another vs M/s. intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (3) TMI 357 (Supreme Court)] Learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 (Supra) and Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Private Limited (Supra), on the date of passing the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
