2017 (12) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Act, 1958 and engaged in providing security guards to various organisations like banks, insurance companies, BSNL etc. They were registered with the department for payment of service tax. For this service, they have discharged service tax with effect from 1.4.2004 and filed statutory returns thereunder. The dispute in the present appeals relates to quantification of tax liability for the services rendered by the appellant. The appellants discharged service tax only on the service charges received from the client organisations and have not included the salary of the guards and other amounts received for the said service. Upon scrutiny of the records of one of the clients (BSNL), the Revenue proceeded to demand and recover differential serv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s decided cases to support his submission that the demand for extended period cannot be sustained in these set of facts. 4. The ld. AR defended the impugned order and submitted that there is no question of bona fide belief against the statutory provision of Section 67. The gross consideration received by the appellants are liable to service tax and there is no contrary decision to hold that only service charge is liable to tax. The justification for the extended period and for imposition of penalties are clearly recorded in the impugned orders and the same requires no interference. 5. The ld. AR also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Rajasthan Ex-Servicemen Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur - I - 2017 (52) STR 42 (Tri.-Del.), where in similar ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....so that the plea of bonafideness can be admitted. The appellants were registered with the department they were only discharging service tax on portion of the consideration received by them. We fail to appreciate such action. The ld. Counsel relied on various decision of the Tribunal to say that the extended period could not be invoked, in a situation where there is a possibility of interpretation. We note that this issue came up in identical situation before us in the case of Rajasthan Ex-Servicemen Ltd. (supra) where the Tribunal observed as under: "8. Regarding penalties imposed for the extended period of demand against the appellant, we note that the impugned order recorded reasons for the same. It is clear that the appellants did not p....