TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 452
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2018 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand of Rs. 19,35,929/- along with interest and appropriate penalty. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was registered with the department under the category of "Security Agency services" and availing the benefit of notification 30/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012. During the period 2012 to 2015, the appellant had provided security services to various organizations and collected charges for the security services provided by them. An audit was conducted and thereafter a show cause notice dated 5.2.2016 was issued to the appellant alleging that the appellant has paid service tax on 25% of the taxable value by wrongly availing the benefit of the notification No.30/2012-ST dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct that the service receiver had paid the tax on 75% of value of taxable service and demanding the same now again from the appellant is not legally justified as held in various cases by the Tribunal. He further submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Sahara Ex-Servicemen Welfare Co-Operative Society Limited vs. Commissioner of CGST, Customs and Central Excise Alwar 2025 (27) CENTAX 187 (Tri.-Del.) had taken a similar view. 4. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department at the outset reiterated the discussion and findings made in the impugned order. However, in all fairness, learned Authorized Representative conceded that the issue was covered squarely by the Tribunal"s decision (supra). 5. We have heard the learned counsel for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atement/exemption of 75% of the tax liability. The Order-in-Original has denied the said exemption holding the appellant is not the "Association of Person". To our understanding the said comparison is not required for the purpose of the impugned notification. It is an admitted fact that 25% of tax liability has been discharged by the appellant. In light of this discussion the confirmation of remaining 75% of the gross value as service tax from appellant is not sustainable. xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx 7. Finally coming to the plea of invocation of extended period of limitation, from the above discussion, it has been already held that appellant was not liable to the tax as has been proposed by the impugned show cause notice....