TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 926
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... net value paid to the CISF. However the appellant are providing the accommodation to the CISF personnel. The case of the department is that intrinsic value of the house rent in respect of accommodation provided to the CISF personnel should be added in the gross value of security service, therefore, there is a short payment of service tax to this extent. 2. Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the outset submits that the appellant are paying service tax only on the net consideration paid by them to the CISF which is gross value charged by the service recipient from the appellant on which the service tax was paid on reverse charge basis. He submits that only the gross amount charged is liable to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty provided by the appellant to the CISF personnel is no longer res integra as this Tribunal vide it's Final Order No.11035/2024 dated 15.05.2024 in the appellant's own case NTPC Ltd vs. CCE & ST- Surat-I decided the issue in favour of the appellant, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:- "4. We have heard both the sides and we find that the matter is no longer res Integra as this Tribunal Vide it's Final Order No. 10779/2024 dated 08.04.2024 in case of M/s. CISF V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Rajkot has already decided the issue at hand in favour of the appellant. The relevant extract of the above order is reproduced here below : - " 2. It is matter of record that since the value of certain facilit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arge basis on the cost of deployment, cost of arms and ammunition, cost of clothing items (uniforms), etc. which is not in dispute. 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, 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded 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. 4. Following the above decision, we hold that impugned orderin-original is without any merit therefore, we set-aside the same. Appeal is allowed." 4.1 We further find that on the issue of whether monetary or otherwise it should flow from a service recipient to a service provider and should accrue to the benefit of the latter; and that this is a precondition of taxability under Section 67, the CESTAT, Allahabad h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 76. It is also observed that when the demand is not maintainable, there is no question of interest on the differential demand of service tax. Hence, the interest demand on the differential service tax liability is not maintainable. 5. Considering the above decision and finding, the impugned order is set aside, the appeal is allowed." Similar issue has been considered in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (supra) by the Kolkata Bench of CESTAT wherein the following order was passed: "7. We find that the issue to be decided is whether costs reimbursed by the appellant to CISF for medical & telephone facilities, imprest expenses and notional value for rent free accommodation, free supply of rented vehicles, etc. are to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue 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. We also note that in the Tribunal decision in the case of Impact Communications (Supra) which has been 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 ....