2021 (11) TMI 835

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R The Order-in-Original No. P I/ADC/ST/38/2014 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 or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... from them under the provisions of Section 75 of the Act. (d) Penalty should not be imposed on them under 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unt as imposed under Section 78, in Para 37.4 above, provided the assessee pay the entire amount of Service Tax, as determined/confirmed in para 37.2 above, along with 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 cov....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nditure on Dog Squad, stationery expenses, telephone charges, expenditure incurred by the service recipient for accommodation provided to CISF etc are not includible. Further, the Principal Bench at New Delhi in 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 th....