Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Sci International Securities Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ... on 3 November, 2015
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
Appeal No.ST/79/2007
[Arising out of OIO No.01/ST/Vadodara-I/Commr/2007, dt.21.02.2007, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara]
M/s SCI International Securities Ltd Appellant
Vs
Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax,
Vadodara-I Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: None. Written Submissions submitted.
For Respondent: Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
CORAM:
HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 03.11.2015 Order No.A/11602/2015, dt.03.11.2015 Per: P.K. Das 1 None appears on behalf of the Appellant. On perusal of the records, we find that the Appellants filed the written submissions dt.28.04.2015 with a request to decide the appeal in their absence on the basis of the records, and the written submissions along with the case laws.
2 After hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, we find that there is a demand of Rs.52,57,748.00 alongwith interest and penalties under the category of Security services. The Appellant already paid the amount of Rs.47,68,300.00, which was appropriated by the Adjudicating authority. The Appellants are contesting demand of tax for the differential amount of Rs.4,89,448.00 on the ground that the Adjudicating authority had not allowed the deduction insofar as the reimbursable expenses, salary, P.F., E.S.I. etc. They have relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt.Ltd. Vs UoI 2013 (29) STR 9 (Del). It has also been submitted that no penal provisions should be invoked.
3 On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Security Agencies Association Vs UoI 2012 (28) STR 3 (Kerala), on the identical issue, held in favour of the Revenue. He submits that the Adjudicating authority had given detailed findings for disallowing the deduction.
4 We find that the Appellant had already admitted and paid the tax of Rs.47,68,300.00. The dispute relates to the balance amount of tax alongwith interest and penalties. It is noticed that the decision in the case of Security Agencies Association (supra) as relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue is in the context of challenging the vires of Service tax under the category of Security service. There is some force in the submission of the Appellant that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Intercontinental (supra) held that the reimbursable expenses would not be included in the taxable value as per the Valuation Rules. In our considered view, the Adjudicating authority should examine the demand of balance amount of tax alongwith interest and penalty in the light of the decisions placed by the Appellant and the learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue, in the interest of justice.
5 In view of the above discussion, we direct the Adjudicating authority to re-examine the demand of the balance amount of tax of Rs. 4,89,448.00 alongwith interest and penalties. The Appellants are directed to co-operate with the Adjudicating authority. Needless to say that the Adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing before passing the order. The appeal filed by the Appellant is disposed in the above terms.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court) (P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) cbb 3