TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o CISF personnel constitute additional consideration under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and are therefore, includible in the taxable value of security agency services. On these allegations, a show cause notices was issued proposing to demand of service tax. The appellant controverted the allegations in the show cause notice by filing the reply to the show cause notice and after following the due process, the original authority confirmed the demand under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 by invoking the extended period of limitation and also demanded interest under Section 75 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and also imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeal before the appellate authority who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law; and binding judicial precedents in the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 67 and that extended period of limitation is not invokable in absence of suppression. The Tribunal in the said decisions has also considered various other decisions of the Tribunal in para 12 of the decision which is reproduced here in below: 12. We also observe that the issue is no more res integra as identical issues were decided in respect of various other units of the same Appellant by various Benches of this Tribunal as under: (a) In the case of CISF v. CC, CE & ST, Allahabad (2019 (1) TMI 1661-CESTAT Allahabad), it has been held as under. "..............On the emoluments paid to CISF, CISF was paying Service Tax. It appeared to revenue that certain other expenses incurred while receiving services by Airport Authority of India should be included in assessable value for the purpose of assessment. The said expenses were Medical Services, expenses on vehicles provided, expenditure on Dog Squad, Stationery Expenses, Telephone Charges, Expenditure incurred by Airport Authority of India on accommodation provided to CISF etc. The learned representative has submitted that except medical expenses all other expenses are directly Incurred by Airport Authority....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anation [to] Section 67, is something which include any amount payable for taxable services provided or to be provided. The bare reading makes it clear that in case any amount is payable qua to CISF the accommodation being provided to the security personnels that it shall be the consideration. If it is consideration, then only Rule 3 [of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules) will come into picture. But as observed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide the Order under challenge that there is no evidence on the point about any amount either in terms of HRA was ever paid to the respondent/CISF, the question of notional value of the free accommodation provided cannot form the port 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. 8. Also coming to the aspect of limitation as has been raised by the respondent, we observe that the period of demand herein is w.e.f. April, 2009 to June, 2012. SCN is issued on 9-9-2014. It is clear that the entire period of demand is beyond the normal period of one year. The service provider herein is Government undertaking. Service recipient is also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....F, CISF Unit, 2019 (24) G.S.T.L.. 232. (Tri-Del) 2019-TIOL1342-CESTAT-DEL, has also held that free accommodation provided by the service recipient to CISF security personnel providing security services is not includable in taxable value. We find that the Ld. Commissioner has merely confirmed the demand, in para 26 appearing in Page 25 of the impugned adjudication order, on the ground that the issue was pending for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd (supra) and Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Private Limited (supra), on the date of passing the impugned order. Since the issue 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. 4.3 In view of the above decision which is squarely on the same issue, we do not find merit in the impugned order and set aside the same [Emphasis supplied] (d) In the case of CISF v. CCE & ST, Rajkot (2024 (4) TMI 391-CESTAT Ahmedabad), it has been held as under. "The brief facts of the matter are that the appellant is an Armed Force of Un....