TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1539
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct to the same assessee and for the same issue. 2. The facts in relevant for both the appeals are as follows: 2.1 The appellant is registered for providing taxable service as that of "Security Agency Service". Based on an Intelligence, Directorate General of Audit observed that the appellant is not paying the service tax on the gross expenses incurred by their clients on their behalf. The miscellaneous expenses like accommodation, medical expenses, telephone charges, vehicle charges, dog squad expenses, insurance charges etc. were not included for calculating the gross value of the services rendered. Department formed the opinion that till 1st May, 2006 the 'Security Agency Service' was leviable on commercial organisation/agency. Howe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....undertakings owned by that Government and to perform such other duties as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government. As per Rules made under CISF, 1968 the members of the force are eligible for following: (i) Free accommodation (Rule 61) ; (ii) Entitled to free medical facilities (Rule 62) ' (iii) For all other matters regarding conditions of services for which there is no specific rule, the rules and orders for the time being applicable to the officers holding corresponding posts in the Central Government in respect of such matters are made applicable to the appointees of CISF (Rule 77) ; (iv) As per Rule 73 of CISF Rules, the charges payable by industrial undertaking in public sector for deputati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax on taxable services such as security service, consulting service provided instead of asking the recipient to deposit the service tax. It is mentioned that the miscellaneous amounts have rightly been held to be nothing but the consideration as defined under Section 67 of the Act and thus are rightly included in the gross value for calculating the service tax liability. It is further mentioned that the factum of non-payment of service tax by the appellant came to the knowledge of department pursuant to the information received by the department and the enquiry conducted based thereupon. This definitely amounts to wilful suppression on part of the appellant. Hence, the extended period should have been invoked. With these submissions and wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id order, there have been various orders following the said decision. The orders are as follows: (a) F.O No. 70053/2019 dated 09.01.2019 passed in the case of CISF Vs. Commissioner of Customs, C.E. & ST, Allahabad. (b) OIA No. 367/ST/Alld/2018 dated 26.10.2018 (c) OIA No, MLR-EXCUS-000-APP-082-16-17 passed in the case of the Commandant, CISF, NPCIL, Kaiga, Karwar Vs. Joint Commissioner, Mangalore Commissionerate. In the appellant's own case CESTAT, Mumbai also vide Final Order No. A/87119/2011 dated 9.11.2021 while taking note of CESTAT, Kolkata decision in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise & S. Tax - 2021-TIOL-551-CESTAT-Kolkata held that the expenses incurred towards medical ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the part of the gross value which has to be taxed under Section 67 of the Act. We, therefore do not find any infirmity in the findings of order under challenge." 11. In the present case also since the appellant has admittedly discharged its service tax liability on the amount received for providing the security service, the tax on the other expenses being the expenses reimbursable cannot be demanded from the appellant. We, therefore, hold that the adjudicating authority below has committed an error while confirming the demand even for the normal period. 12. Coming to the plea of the extended period as to whether the same was invokable or not. We hold that suppression of fact is not enough to invoke the extended period of limit under ....