2025 (4) TMI 370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eriod 18.04.2006 to 31.12.2011. 2. The issue, in brief, is that the appellants were found to have been engaged in providing Security Agency Services (SAS) to M/s Bharat Dynamics Ltd., and were receiving consideration for the same. It was noted by the Department that with effect from 18.04.2006, the term 'any Commercial Concern' in the definition of Security Agency Service was replaced by the term 'any person' and therefore CISF became liable for service tax. On adjudication, this view was upheld by the Adjudicating Authority, however, dropped demand upto March 2009, in view of ad-hoc exemption order no. 1/1/2011 dated 01.07.2011 and CBEC clarification dated 05.09.2011 regarding non-waiver of interest or penalty for the period April 2009 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....regards the exclusion of the salary arrears on account of 6th Pay Commission revision from the taxable value, where the Adjudicating Authority has already given relief to the extent evidence adduced in this regard by the appellant, he is submitting that this being an old matter, it may still be difficult for them to provide the same. 4. Learned AR, at this point of time, draws our attention to the letter dated 19.01.2012 from appellant, as cited in Order-in-Original, wherein, it was informed that providing evidence was very difficult as the bill volumes were large. Learned AR further reiterates the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and also submits that in the facts of the case, penalty has been rightly imposed. He is also reite....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of penalty under Section 78, admittedly, CISF is Central Armed Police Force under the Ministry of Home Affairs. We find that the charges for invoking the extended period and levy of penalty is contained in Para 8 of the show cause notice from which, we do not find any substantive and positive evidence which would have required imposition of penalty under Section 78. A mere delay due to interpretational issue cannot be termed as a deliberate attempt with an intent to evade payment of service tax. The Department had to come out with ad-hoc exemption to waive the demand for the period prior to April 2009. In this case, it is also apparent that the CISF on their own has also paid certain amount. We have also perused the judgments cited by the ....