2019 (11) TMI 681

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the present case are that the assessee was providing security service to M/s. Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited (KIOCL) and were paying service tax on amounts received as consideration i.e. on the deployment charges. It was noticed that the assessee was not discharging service tax on the facilities such as medical expenses, vehicle facility, telephone, rent free accommodation, stationary expenses etc for the period April 2009 to June 2012 since as per Section 67 gross amount received will be taxable amount. Notice dated 17/09/2013 demanding Rs. 1641233 being the differential service tax for the period 01/04/2009 to 30/06/2012. The adjudicating authority after considering the reply of the assessee confirmed the demand in the OIO 17/03/2016....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that once the appellants are not liable to pay service tax, therefore the interest liability also does not arise. Appellant contended that this issue is common to all CISF units in India and the Department has issued show-cause notice on the same issue in respect of other units also. In respect of show-cause notice issued on other units on this issue, the appellate authorities have held that the said activity is not taxable and dropped the demand, interest and penalty. The appellants have placed on record the following case-laws involving same issue in respect of their other units: • F.O. No. 70053/2019 dated 09/01/2019 passed in the case of CISF Vs. Commissioner of Customs, C.E & ST, Allahabad • OIA No. 367/ST/All....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al is allowed." The appellant also relied upon the decision in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore North F.O No. 20268/2019 dated 14/03/2019, wherein it has been held as under: "7. In view of my discussion above, I am of the considered view that the impugned order demanding interest in terms of Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act is not sustainable in law therefore I set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant." 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellants are providing security services to various Central Government organizations. T....