TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....994. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is a PSU and a 100% subsidiary company of Coal India Limited. The appellant is engaged in the business of mining and selling of coal. In the course of business, the appellant receives security services in terms of a Memorandum of Understanding from Central Industrial Security Force, Koyla Nagar Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as "CISF‟). With the introduction of Negative List w.e.f. 01.07.2012, the appellant started discharging service tax on said security services as a service recipient on reverse charge basis. For the purpose of valuation, the appellant was considering the amount paid to CISF towards cost of deployment, cost of arms and ammunition and cost of clot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the value of the taxable service as provided in Section 67 at that point of time. He submitted that issue has been squarely settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Private Limited (2018) 4 SCC 669 = 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 401 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that the reimbursement claimed by service provider is not includible in the assessable value for payment of service tax liability. He further submitted that the cost of free supplied are also not liable to be included by following the principles laid down in the case of Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi 2013 (32) STR 49 (Tri- LB) which has also been upheld by the Hon‟ble Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt reported in 2016 (334) ELT A123 (SC) * CCE Vadodara vs. INDEOS ABS Ltd 2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj) Sarovar Hotels Pvt Ltd. vs. CST Mumbai 2018 (10) GSTL 72 (Tri-Mum) * Texyard International vs. CCE Trichy 2015 (40) STR 322 (Tri-Chennai * Ashirwad Foundaries Pvt. Ltd v Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata North Commissionerate, S. Tax Appeal No. 75639 of 2019, decided CESTAT on 28th February 2020. Further, the Ld. Advocate also submitted that CISF has been constituted under "The Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968", is a statutory body rendering the subject security service and is separate from the State and cannot be regarded as Central or State Government. He accordingly submitted that the appellant is legally not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used the appeal records. 7. We find that the issue to be decided is whether costs reimbursed by the appellant to CISF for medical & telephone facilities, imprest expenses and notional value for rent free accommodation, free supply of rented vehicles, etc. are to be added to the assessable value for payment of service tax on reverse charge basis. The appellant is already depositing service tax on reverse charge basis on the cost of deployment, cost of arms and ammunition, cost of clothing items (uniforms), etc. which is not in dispute. We find that the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Central Industrial Security Force v Commissioner of Customs, C.E. & S.T., Allahabad, Appeal No. ST/70293/2016-CU[DB] decided on 9th January, 20....