Service tax demand upheld on two notices, penalties set aside on third notice. Review of Modified applications dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the demand for service tax under two show cause notices, while restricting the demand under a third notice to the normal time limit with penalties set aside. The appellant's arguments regarding the validity of the notice and levy of service tax on security services were not accepted, with the Tribunal emphasizing that all arguments were adequately considered in the Final Order. The Tribunal dismissed the Review of Modified (ROM) applications, stating that a review under ROM was impermissible, and the cumulative effect of arguments sufficed, in line with established case law principles.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of show cause notice dated 12.10.2007 under Section 73(l)(a) and Section 73(1).
2. Levy of service tax on security services run by ex-servicemen.
3. Consideration of arguments in the Final Order for ROM application.

Analysis:
1. The ROM applications were filed regarding a Final Order upholding the demand for service tax under three show cause notices. The demand under the notice dated 12.10.2007 for the extended period and the notice dated 20.06.2008 for the normal period were upheld, while the demand under the notice dated 15.05.2013 was restricted to the normal time limit with penalties set aside. The appellant argued that the notice dated 12.10.2007 was invalid as it covered periods with different statutory provisions. The appellant also contended that the Tribunal did not discuss crucial grounds in the final order, citing precedents supporting their arguments.

2. The appellant further argued that the levy of service tax on security services by ex-servicemen had led to conflicting views in different Tribunal Benches. They claimed that allegations of suppression could not be made against them based on precedents. The appellant asserted that these significant arguments were not addressed in the final order, seeking a recall of the order due to apparent errors and requesting the extension of the benefits of the cited decisions.

3. The Revenue rebutted the appellant's arguments, relying on a Tribunal decision stating that the law applicable at the time of the offense governs. The Revenue contended that the cited decisions were considered but distinguished in the final order. They opposed the ROM application, stating that all arguments were adequately considered by the Tribunal, and the appellant could not seek a review under the guise of ROM. The Tribunal, in its decision, emphasized that detailed reasons were provided in the Final Order, and only the cumulative effect of arguments needed to be addressed, citing relevant legal precedents.

4. The Tribunal dismissed the ROM applications, highlighting that all arguments were duly considered before the final order was passed. It was clarified that a review of the appeal under the ROM was impermissible, referencing legal precedents that supported this stance. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that the cumulative effect of arguments sufficed, as established in relevant case law. The ROM applications were thus rejected, and the order was pronounced on 18/7/2018.

---