TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 885
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 of the Act; an equal penalty under Section 78 of the Act and a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 of the Act were also imposed on the appellant. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant M/s Semi Conductor Laboratory (in short 'SCL') is an autonomous body of the Govt of India. Since 2006 till 2022, it was fully owned and controlled by the Dept of Space, Govt of India. The appellant is wholly funded through grant in aid from the budget of Dept of Space, Govt of India. Since 2022, the appellant has taken over by the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Govt of India. Before it was taken over by the ISRO, Dept of Space, it was known as Semi Conduct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant suppressed the fact of being a 'business entity' and thus violated the provisions of Sections 68, 69 & 70 of the Act read with Rule 6, Rule 4 and Rule 7 of the Rules, respectively. After following the due process, the learned Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.83,81,616/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 of the Act; an equal penalty under Section 78 of the Act and a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 of the Act were also imposed. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ite Centre vide letter dated 06.09.2012. 4.4 He further submits that it is the sovereign duty of CISF, a statutory body created by an Act of the Parliament and one of the Central Armed Police Forces, to protect and safeguard the industrial undertaking owned by the Central Government. He also submits that just as the police forces of the State which also provide security to persons and institutions on payment of cost recovery, the CISF also does so and therefore the CISF has also been held to be not liable to pay service tax. In this regard, he relies on the following cases: • Dy. Commissioner of Police Jodhpur vs. CCE & ST, Jaipur - 2017 (48) STR 275 (Tri. Delhi) • CCE & ST, Jaipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f some internal correspondence to the effect that other similar divisions of Dept of Space were not paying service tax on Security Services provided by the CISF. 4.9 He further submits that the issue pertains to domain of interpretation and therefore, extended period cannot be invoked. He also submits that no suppression can be alleged against a Government department. For this, he relies on the following cases: • Karnataka Industrial Areas Dev. Board vs. Commr of Central Tax, Bengaluru North - 2020 (40) GSTL 33 (Tri. Bang.) • Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology vs. CCE, Bhopal - 2019 (27) GSTL 383 (Tri. Delhi) 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....L was to establish a centre of excellence in micro-electronics in the country to meet the strategic requirement of country without any commercial considerations. We also find that it is the sovereign duty of the CISF, a statutory body of the Union Government, to protect certain installations as specified by the Government to be vital. 8. We also find that the Tribunal in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Police Jodhpur (supra) has held that the activity of State Police represented by the Superintendents of Police of various districts providing security personnel to various organizations and for character verifications of candidates selected for various jobs on payment of charges, is not leviable to service tax under the category of 'Securi....