Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by a Central Para Military Force against service tax demand on notional value of facilities provided by SSP. The appellant had discharged service tax on consideration received for security services but the Department demanded tax on additional facilities like rent-free accommodation, office premises, electricity, vehicles, fuel, medical treatment, and stationery provided by SSP. The Tribunal held that without evidence of actual payment or quantified cost in the MOU, notional value cannot be included in taxable value under Section 67(1)(ii) of Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 3(3) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Tribunal also found no suppression by the appellant to invoke extended limitation period. Following precedent in CGST CCE Dehradun v. Commandant CISF Unit, the demand was set aside on both merits and limitation grounds.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
