TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a in view of the following decisions:- (a) Commissioner of Service Tax &Ors. V. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd; (2018) 3 SCC 782 (b) Union of India & Anr.v. Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd.; (2018) 4 SCC 669 (c) Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltdv. Union of India &Anr.; WP (C) 6370 of 2008; Judgment dated 30.11.2012 (d) Central Industrial Security Forcev. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST; CESTAT (Ahmedabad Bench); 2024 SCC OnLine CESTAT 340 (e) Central Industrial Security Forcev. Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam; CESTAT (Hyderabad Bench); ST/26170/2013; Decision dated 10.05.2024 (f) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax; CESTAT(Kolkata Bench); 2021 SCC On Line CESTAT 6530 (g) Naresh Kumar & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India &Ors.; 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 9145 (h) Order passed in the case of M/s. National Fertilizers Ltd., Panipat by the Ld. Additional Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (i) Order passed in the case of M/s. Rajiv Gandhi Thermal Power Plant, Haryana by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Gurgaon (j) U.P. State Sugar & Cane Development Corporation Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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, 2019, has already settled the issue in favour of the appellant to hold that expenses incurred towards medical Services, vehicles, expenditure 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), has also held that free accommodation provided by the service recipient to CISF security personnel providing security services is not includable in taxable value. Service Tax Appeal No.75020/2017 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration' for rendering the services. Therefore, value of free supplies of diesel and explosives would not warrant inclusion while arriving at the gross amount charged on its Service Tax is to be paid. Therefore, all these appeals are also dismissed." [Emphasis supplied] 11. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhayana Builders Pvt Ltd (cited supra), have held that free supplies would not form part of the total value for charging of Service Tax. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: "16. In fact, the definition of "gross amount charged" given in Explanation (c) to Section 67 only provides for the modes of the payment or book adjustments by which the consideration can be discharged by the service recipient to the service provider. It does not expand the meaning of the term "gross amount charged" to enable the Department to ignore the contract value or the amount actually charged by the service provider to the service recipient for the service rendered. The fact that it is an inclusive definition and may not be exhaustive also does not lead to the conclusion that the contract value can be ignored and the value of free supply goods can be added over and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in accordance with the provisions of Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 and therefore, the reimbursable expenses paid to the service provider are not includable in the assessable value. We also note that Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the said decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and held that Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 authorizes only such consideration which is received by the serviceprovider for assessment of Service Tax. By following the said ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court we hold that the impugned order is not sustainable." [Emphasis supplied] b) In the case of CGST, CCE, Dehradun vs Commandant CISF Unit [2019 (2) TMI 1175 - CESTAT New Delhi], it has been held as under : "3. It is submitted on behalf of the Department that the Order-in Original had specifically appreciated that the cost of accommodation facility as provided by BHEL to CISF (the service provider) but in lieu of HRA which according to Rule 3 of Valuation Rules becomes the such consideration for the service provider i.e. CISF which otherwise not in terms of money. This important finding has absolutely been ignored by Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the Order under challenge. While impressing upon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pune [2021 (11) TMI 835 - CESTAT Mumbai], it has been held as under: "2.2 The appellant was providing security agency services to M/s. Infosys Ltd., Pune from July 2010. They were determining the assessable value on the amount charged by them from the service recipient. However, the appellant was receiving certain facilities like accommodation, medical facility, vehicle, telephone, stationery etc. and has not included the value of these facilities while determining the taxable value for payment of service tax in respect of the services rendered by them. 4.2 We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by various decisions referred to by the appellant. Taking note of all the said decisions, the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. [2021-TIOL-551-CESTAT-KOL]:- "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, 2019 = 2019-TIOL-3277- CESTAT-ALL, has already settled the issue in favour of the appellant to hold that expenses incurred towards medical Services, vehicles, expenditure on Dog Squ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een included in the taxable value for providing security service to M/s. Reliance Industries Limited. 2. .................. 3. .................. 4. Following the above decision, we hold that impugned order-in-original is without any merit therefore, we set-aside the same. Appeal is allowed." [Emphasis supplied] 13. It can be observed from the above decisions that in the case of other units of the same Appellant, identical issues were raised by the Appellant and in all these cases it has been held that the reimbursement expenses are not to be added to the gross value for arriving at the Service Tax payable. The Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules has been held as ultra vires by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. Similarly, in these cases, it has also been held that the rent free accommodation provided to the CISF personnel cannot be taken as additional consideration. Therefore, we find that cited case laws are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Following the ratio laid down in these cases, we allow the Appeal on merits. 14. We also see considerable force in the argument of the Appellant that the confirmed demand for t....