TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 835
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....014 dated 29.03.2014, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune I is modified as under: (i) The confirmation of demand of Service Tax of Rs. 26,74,869/- Section 73 of the Act is upheld. (ii) Demand of interest under Section 75 of the Act is set aside. (iii) The equivalent penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Act is also set aside. The present appeal is disposed off accordingly." 2.1 The appellant is providing security agency services and the services provided by the appellant are exempt from payment of service tax leviable thereon under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 as per the ad-hoc exemption notification order No.1/1/2011 dated 01.07.2011 for the period from 16.10.1998 to 31.03.2009. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 76 of the Act for their failure to pay Service Tax in prescribed manner. (e) Penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 77 of the Act for their failure to assess the correct value of Services rendered in prescribed manner. (f) Penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 78 of the Act for suppressing the value of the taxable services provided and contravention of various provisions of law with intent to evade payment of applicable Service Tax." 2.4 The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I holding as follows: "37.1 I hold that the amount of Rs. 2,50,87,700/- which is equivalent to the additional consideration received by M/s. Central Industrial Security For....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th interest payable thereon as ordered in para 37.3 above as well as the reduced 25% penalty, within 30 days of the date of communication of this order." 3.1 We have heard Shri N. Anand, Advocate, for the appellant and Shri Nitin M. Tagade, Joint Commissioner, Authorised Representative, for the Revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the appellant, learned counsel submits that the issue;- * involved in the matter is with regard to inclusion of reimbursable expenses in the value of the taxable services provided by them. * is no longer res integra and has been covered by various decisions in appellant's own case i.e. 2019-TIOL-3277- CESTAT-ALL and [2019 (24) GSTL 232 (Tri.-Del.)]. 3.3 Learned AR reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of Commr. Of CGST, Cus & C. Ex, Dehradun vs Commandant CISF, CISF Unit, 2019 (24) GSTL 232 (Tri- Delhi) = 2019-TIOL-1342-CESTAT-DEL, has also held that free accommodation provided by the service recipient to CISF security personnel providing security services is not includable in taxable value. We find that the Ld. Commissioner has merely confirmed the demand, in para 26 appearing in Page 25 of the impugned adjudication order, on the ground that the issue was pending for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd (Supra) and Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Private Limited (Supra), on the date of passing the impugned order. Since the issue is no longer res integra, as the legal positi....