TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 113
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 facie it does not carry on a business but is a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er 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, detection or verification, of any facts of activity, wheth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 that (i) The expression of Security Agency in Section 65(94....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Appellant is that it does not engage in any business. The Appella....