CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the service-tax demand....

CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the service-tax demand. The Tribunal held that the appellant, a wholly government-owned and controlled autonomous unit funded by grant-in-aid and staffed by government employees to perform strategic R&D, does not qualify as a "business entity" under the statutory definition and is barred from commercial activity. The security service was rendered by CISF, a statutory Union body performing its sovereign duty to protect vital installations. Because the appellant does not carry on industry or commerce and is not a factory registrant, the CISF's security service to the appellant is not taxable; the Commissioner's finding of commercial activity was overturned.