TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 616
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se notice has been decided by this CESTAT Ahmedabad reported at NTPC Ltd vs. CCE & ST , Surat - 2024 (5) TMI 816- CESTAT. Subsequently, the show cause notice for the period April, 2015 to June 2017 on the same ground proposing to demand of service tax under the category of business support service was issued. The said show cause notice dated 04.04.2018 was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner vide Oder-In-Original dated 28.01.2019. Being aggrieved by the said Order-In-Original an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise , Customs and Service Tax , Surat. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the Order-In-Original dated 28.01.2019. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Shri Jigar Shah, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant at the outset submits that this issue is no longer res-integra as in the various judgments it was held that certain amenities provided by the service recipient to the security service provider shall not form security service. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- * CGST vs. Commandant CISF Unit - 2019 (2) TMI 1175 - CESTAT New Delhi * SR Commandant Central Industrial Security Force....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be, to any account, whether called "Suspense account" or by any other name, in the books of account of a person liable to pay service tax, where the transaction of taxable service is with any associated enterprise." Since the demand was proposed alongwith Rule 3 of Determination of Value Rules. Same is also relevant to be looked into which reads as follows: "3. Manner of determination of value.- Subject to the provisions of section 67, the value of taxable service,1 where such value is not ascertainable, shall be determined by the service provider in the following manner:- (a) the value of such taxable service shall be equivalent to the gross amount charged by the service provider to provide similar service to any other person in the ordinary course of trade and the gross amount charged is the sole consideration; (b) where the value cannot be determined in accordance with clause (a), the service provider shall determine the equivalent money value of such consideration which shall, in no case be less than the cost of provision of such taxable service." A joint reading of both the provisions makes it clear that the service tax is chargeable on the value of the service provided.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 1994 for invoking the extended period of limitation. Seeing from this angle, SCN is hit by the principle of limitation. 9. In view of entire above discussion, the Order is opined to have no infirmity. Appeal stands dismissed." * The similar view has been taken by the principle bench of this tribunal at Delhi in the case of SR Commandant Central Industrial Security Force vs. CC - 2023 (4) TMI 872 -CESTAT New Delhi:- "The order dated 10.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent it holds that the appellant would be liable to pay service tax with interest has been assailed in this appeal. 2. The allegations against the appellant was that it was discharging service tax liability on the consideration received towards salary and allowance, but it did not discharge service tax on non-monetary consideration such as free accommodation, medical facilities, vehicle and telephone insurance and stationery and other expenses for the period April 2009 to March 2012. The show cause notice dated 12.03.2014 also invoked the extended period of limitation contemplated under the proviso to section 73 of the Finance Act 1994. The Joint Commissioner by order dated 19.02.2015,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice 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. 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 position has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in both the above judgements, this Tribunal is bound by the said legal position." 5. Thus, for the reasons stated in the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, with which we have no reason to differ, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. It would, therefore, not be necessary to examine the is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en heavily relied by the Ld. A/R for the Revenue, the demand was confirmed for the reason that the reimbursement was not claimed on actual basis and that there was no pre- arrangement with the client for authorising such reimbursement of expenses which is not the case herein inasmuch as there is a specific MOU agreed with the CISF as also appearing in the appeal paper book. There is no dispute in the entire case proceedings that expenses have been reimbursed on actual basis. Hence, the contentions of the Revenue cannot be accepted. In so far as the issue of extended period of limitation is concerned, we do not find any case of fraud or suppression and hence, the notice issued by invoking extended period is not sustainable. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order cannot be sustained and therefore, the same is set aside. The appeal is thus allowed with consequential relief." * It is pertinent to mention that in the appellant's own case for the previous period on the identical issue, this tribunal set aside the demand and allowed the appeal. The order of NTPC Ltd vs. CCE - 2024 (5) TMI 816 - CESTAT is reproduced below:- "4. We have heard both the sides and we find t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry 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 the issue is no longer res-integra, as the legal position has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in both the above judgments, this Tribunal is bound by the said legal position. We also note that in the Tribunal decision in the case of Impact Communications (Supra) which has been heavily relied b....