2015 (12) TMI 548

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt facts of the case in brief are that M/s New Industrial Security Service (M) [in short NISS(M)] and M/s New Industrial Security Service [in short NISS] situated in the same premises are providing Security Services covered under the Service Tax net. On 11.3.2004, the Central Excise Officers visited the appellants' premises and found that the appellant rendered the services as Security Agency Services as defined under Section 65 of the Finance Act 1994 and they have not paid the Service Tax. 3. A Show Cause Notice dtd 29.6.2004 was issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs . Div. II proposing demand of Service Tax of Rs. 58,47,888/- alongwith interest and to impose penalty on NISS and the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Bhagavathy Traders vs CCE, Kochi - 2011.24.STR.290 (Tri. LB) held that the reimbursement expenses would not be excluded from the assessable value. He reiterates the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. It is submitted that the appellant had not disclosed the amount even in their balance sheet and therefore, extended period of limitation. He also submits that they have not obtained registration certificate in respect of the Security Agency Services and the extended period of limitation would be invoked. 6. We find that there is no dispute on the leviability of Service Tax under the category of Security Agency Services on both the appellant. The dispute relates to the quantification of the demand ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of tax and they have not paid the tax and therefore it is a fit case to invoke the extended period of limitation. Hence, the extended period of limitation would be invoked in this case. 8. The Learned Advocate submits that they have paid the entire amount of tax and therefore the imposition of penalty is not warranted. We find that the appellant had not disclosed the amount of the tax to the Dept. They have also not filed return. The Central Excise officers during the visit had detected the non-payment of the tax. So, the imposition of penalty is warranted. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is sufficient. We agree with the....