TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1518
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l No. ST/50239/2015 is taken as the lead case for discussion and disposal. Vide the impugned order dated 25.09.2014, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of service tax along with interest. However, the penalty imposed under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act has been dropped on the ground that the appellant was under the bona fide belief that they were performing a statutory function and do not fall under the tax net and this assumption was found to be correct and the learned Commissioner extended the benefit of Section 80 to drop the penalties." 2. Brief facts of the present case are that during the course of audit of M/s. Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal office (urban), Hall Bazar, Amritsar (hereinafter refer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmed the demand of Rs. 15,47,643 along with interest under proviso to Section 73(1) and 75 of the Act. Penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act was also imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant field before the Commissioner (Appeals), who partly allowed the appeal of the appellant and dropped the penalties under Section 76,77 and 78 of the Act. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. The learned Consultant 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, the law, and binding judicial precedents. He further submits that the appellant is a part of the Zila Sainik Board, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regard, he refers to Section 65(94) to show that a 'security agency' means 'any commercial concern engaged in the business of providing security personnel'. He submits that the words 'any person' appearing in the definition were later substituted for the words 'any commercial concern'. He further argues that the appellant Board cannot be deemed as security agency since it is not engaged in any commercial business. On the aspect of limitation, he submits that although the original authority confirmed the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), while upholding the invocation of the extended period, dropped the penalty under Section 78 of the Act. He stresses th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... following decisions, Wherein, it has been held that service tax is not applicable on the services performed by statutory corporation: * M/s Indian Red Cross Society Vs. Commissioner of CE & ST, Chandigarh Vide Final Order No. 60361/2025 (CESTAT, Chandigarh). * [2021] 131 taxmann.com 275 (Mumbai-CESTAT) - CESTAT, Mumbai Bench- Superintendent of Police (Rural) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. * [2024] 164 taxman.com 731 (Madras) High Court of Madras, Superintendent of Police vs. Union of India. 5. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative for the Department, reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both parties and perused the material on recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... state and not engaged in the business of providing of security agency service also substantiated from the contents of the letter written by it to the security guard so sponsored/facilitated to the bank and one of the copy of such letter is enclosed as annexure to the written submissions and the perusal of the contents of the same is self-explanatory. We also find that this Tribunal in the case of M/s Indian Red Cross Society Vs. Commissioner of CE & ST, Chandigarh (cited supra), wherein the Tribunal has held in para 9 as reproduced below: "In view of our discussions above, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and thereafter, we set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief if any, as ....