TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e adjudicating authority has not only misapplied the law as settled but that the dictates of common sense have been ignored in the eagerness to extract tax at any cost. 2. According to Learned Counsel appearing for appellant, the impugned order has taxed their activity of sub-contracting the work of 'construction of compound wall/fencing as well as development and maintenance of green belt' around 'water tank mains and adjoining reservoir and pumping station lands' as 'security agents services' rendered by them merely owing to the circulation of tender intimation combining it with 'pipeline surveillance and protection arrangements' that was, in any case, not awarded to them but to another. The genesis of the dispute, according to him, was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y finding to have a stable base unless by some quirk of 'taxable event' the statute construes it so. From a tax point of view, both are independently leviable to the impost unless by some quirk of 'deeming fiction' the statute renders them inseparable. From the remuneration perspective, the consideration for both activities, being billed separately, should be assessed severally unless by a quirk of 'valuation mechanism' the statute specifies otherwise. It is, therefore, appropriate to examine the impugned order for the legal, even if not logical, base for this unique approach to the scope of 'security agency service' defined in section 65(94) of Finance Act, 1994. 4. The 'taxable service' (w) any service provided or to be provided to any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ack', fetter the appellant with the duty liability. At the first level is the supposition that 'any manner' is wide enough to stretch without any stress to the law. It further supposes that the syntactical and grammatical dispersion in the cover page of the bid document is flawless in depicting the intent of the contracting parties. Thereafter, it supposes that the appellant is the tenderer providing Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) with 'security agency services' to which the differential value was to be added. The final supposition is that law does not guard against encroachments with prevention in future hinged upon physical impediments stipulated in the tender. 7. In doing so, the adjudicating authority has assumed that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aipur-II [2017-TIOL-896-CESTAT-DEL], in National Construction Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2014-TIOL-387-CESTAT-DEL], in Ace Construction Mines and Mineral Coop Society v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II [2019 (9) GSTL 107 (Tri-Del)] affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Tuli Construction Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneshwar-II [2019 (25) GSTL 43 (Tri-Kolkata] and in Webel Technology Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata [2018 (19) GSTL 467 (Cal)] in support of the argument that an indivisible contract cannot be altered merely by separate charges therein. In this context, circular no. 334/1/2008-TRU dated 29th February 2008 of Central Board of Excise & Custo....