https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756504 CESTAT NEW DELHI held that expenses paid to CISF guards and costs for arms, ammunition, and safety equipment are not includable in service valuation under Rule 5 of Valuation Rules, 2006. The tribunal found that amenities provided to CISF by service recipients do not constitute consideration for security services. The extended limitation period was wrongly invoked as the department failed to prove fraud or suppression by the appellant. The demand was set aside and appeal allowed. en-us Fri, 02 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Aug 2024 07:04:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756504 CESTAT NEW DELHI held that expenses paid to CISF guards and costs for arms, ammunition, and safety equipment are not includable in service valuation under Rule 5 of Valuation Rules, 2006. The tribunal found that amenities provided to CISF by service recipients do not constitute consideration for security services. The extended limitation period was wrongly invoked as the department failed to prove fraud or suppression by the appellant. The demand was set aside and appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 02 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756504