Appellant Prevails: Cash Van Services Not Taxable as Security Services

The Tribunal held that the appellant's main service was providing cash van services rather than 'security services'. Relying on precedent, it concluded the appellant was not liable to pay differential service tax under the 'security services' category. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The appellant was entitled to relief as per law.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal upholding Order-in-Original demanding service tax and imposing penalty for financial year 2012-13 - Whether demand justified based on earlier show cause notice - Whether issue covered by previous Tribunal decision.

Analysis:
The appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal upholding an Order-in-Original demanding service tax and imposing a penalty for the financial year 2012-13. The appellant provided 'Security Services' and cash van services to a bank. The show cause notice dated 14.10.2015 was issued based on an earlier notice for the period 2011-12. The demand was for around Rs. 81 lakhs due to discrepancies in balance sheet figures and service tax payments. The Order-in-Original confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of around Rs. 8 lakhs, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

Upon hearing both sides, it was noted that the issue was covered by a Final Order dated 19.09.2018, which considered similar proceedings against the appellant for the financial years 2006-07 to 2011-12. The Tribunal agreed with the parties that the issue for the financial year 2012-13 was covered by the said Final Order. The Final Order highlighted discrepancies in figures between bank statements, profit and loss accounts, and ST-3 returns, leading to the allegation of short payment of service tax on 'security services'. The Tribunal's decision in Final Order No.71780-70782/2018 dated 27.07.2018 was referenced, emphasizing the distinction between 'security services' and 'cash van services' based on the dominant service provided.

Relying on the precedent set by the Tribunal, it was held that the appellant's main service was providing cash van services rather than 'security services'. Drawing parallels with a previous case involving excess baggage charges, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not liable to pay differential service tax under the category of 'security services'. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The appellant was entitled to relief as per law. The Tribunal pronounced its decision on 29 November 2019.

---