CISF accommodation rent value not includible in gross security service value for service tax

CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal regarding valuation of accommodation provided to CISF personnel. The department demanded service tax on the intrinsic value of house rent for accommodation provided to CISF personnel, arguing it should be added to gross value of security service under reverse charge mechanism. The tribunal held that based on precedents in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and NTPC Ltd cases, the intrinsic value of accommodation rent is not includible in gross value of security service. The demand was held unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues:
Valuation of accommodation provided by the appellant to CISF personnel for service tax calculation.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the valuation of accommodation provided by the appellant to Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel for service tax calculation. The appellant was availing security services from CISF and paying service tax on the reverse charge mechanism based on the net value paid to CISF. The issue arose when the department argued that the intrinsic value of house rent for the accommodation provided to CISF personnel should be included in the gross value of security service, leading to a short payment of service tax. The appellant contended that only the gross amount charged should be liable to service tax and that the accommodation provided should not be considered as a part of the gross value.

The appellant's counsel cited various judgments, including those of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., NTPC Ltd., UOI vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., and CST vs. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd., to support their argument that the accommodation provided should not be included in the gross value for service tax calculation. The Tribunal also referred to its own previous decisions, such as the Final Order No. 10779/2024, to establish that the issue was no longer res integra and had been decided in favor of the appellant in similar cases.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions from both sides and found that the issue of valuation of free housing facilities provided by the appellant to CISF personnel was no longer res integra. Referring to the Final Order No. 11035/2024 and other relevant judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the demand raised by the department was unsustainable and liable to be set aside. It was held that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax on the value of accommodation, vehicles for transportation, telephone facilities, etc. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the precedents and legal principles established in previous cases.

The Tribunal also addressed the issue of penalty and interest, stating that since the demand was not maintainable, there was no basis for imposing penalties or interest on the appellant. The judgment highlighted that the demand on merits was not sustainable, and therefore, penalties and interest on the differential service tax liability were not maintainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the legal position established in previous judgments and the specific facts of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that the intrinsic value of the rent for the accommodation provided by the appellant to CISF personnel should not be included in the gross value of security service for service tax calculation. The demand based on including the accommodation value was deemed unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

---