TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Bird Scaring for the Airport Authority of India – Held that - activity of bird scaring does not fall under the purview of the activities of the security agency. If an activity or a service is not covered under a particular service it cannot be taxed - ST/268 OF 2008 - 462 OF 2009 - Dated:- 16-4-2009 - M.V. RAVINDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER and T.K. JAYARAMAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Ms. Sudha Koka fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The lower authority has confirmed the demand and imposed penalties as aforementioned vide the impugned order. 3. Aggrieved by such Order of the adjudicating authority, the appellants filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions made by the appellants rejected the appeal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agency Services." It is undisputed that the appellant had an agreement with the Airport Authority of India for 'bird scaring services' on job contract basis. On perusal of the said agreement which is on record, we find that the contract is given as a lump sum contract for only bird scaring activity. The scope of this activity is to scare the birds in the airport area by periodical firing at specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find that the various decisions of the Tribunal Maruthi Detective Security Agency v. CCE [2007] 6 STT 164 (Bang.-CESTAT) and Oberoi Flight Service v. CST [2007] 10 STT 469 (New Delhi-CESTAT) lay down that the various other operations provided by the Security agency cannot be considered as the services rendered by the Security Agencies. Undoubtedly in the case before us, it is nobody's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
