TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 113
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeal arises out of an order passed by the CESTAT on 6 May 2011 on an application for waiver of pre-deposit and for stay of recovery in respect of a demand for service tax in the amount of Rs. 12,90,54,553/-. 3. The Tribunal has directed the Appellant to deposit an amount representing 50% of Rs. 9,76,97,740/- under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application of the Appellant for a complete waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit having regard to the fact that a serious triable issue arises in the appeal and the Appellant seeks to establish that prima f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to the security guards by the Principal employer have been prescribed. Both the Principal employers and the Security Guards are registered with the Board. The establishments are liable to remit to the Board the stipulated amounts every month for the payment of wages and allowances to the Security Guards besides which a levy is recovered to meet the expenses of administering the scheme. 6. Prior to 1 May, 2006 the expression Security Agency was defined by the Finance Act, 1994 as follows : "65(94) "Security Agency" means any commercial concern engaged in the business of rendering services, relating to the security of any property, movable or immovable, or of any person, in any manner and includes the services of investigation, detect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Rs. 12,90,54,553/- for the period from 1 May 2006 to 31 March 2007. The First Respondent by an order dated 9 September 2009 confirmed the demand holding that the activity of supplying security guards by the Appellant to factories and other establishments is a service which is covered by the definition under Section 65(94). The Appellant filed an appeal before the CESTAT, in which an application for waiver of pre-deposit was made. By its impugned order dated 6 May 2011, the Tribunal held that prima facie, the Appellant falls within the definition of the expression 'Security Agency' under Section 65(94) and directed the Appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,88,48,874/-. 8. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... waiver as prayed. The merits of the appeal would be decided by the Tribunal independently. Prima facie at this stage, it appears that prior to 1 May 2006 the definition of Security Agency in section 65(94) was applicable to a commercial concern, engaged in the business of rendering services relating to the security of any property. The words "commercial concern" have now been deleted with effect from 1 May 2006 and have been substituted by the words "any person". Nonetheless the primary requirement in Section 65(94) is that a person must be engaged in the business of rendering services relating to security of any property and the definition includes the business of rendering services of providing security personnel. The contention of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 4,88,48,874/-. The Appellant is a statutory body. But apart from that, the question as to whether the Appellant carries on the business of rendering services relating to the security of any property including the business of providing security personnel is a serious triable question. Consequently an order for pre-deposit was not warranted in the circumstances of the case. 11. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the Tribunal in so far as it directs the Appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,88,48,874/-. The Appellant shall be entitled to an absolute waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit subject to the Appellant filing an undertaking and bond before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks fr....