Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Vadodara-I vs Lakhani Piraji Vanjara on 15 February, 2024
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST ZONAL BENCH : AHMEDABAD
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 3
SERVICE TAX Appeal No. 10515 of 2015-DB
[Arising out of Order-in-Original/Appeal No SUR-EXCUS-001-COM-023-14-15 dated
04.08.2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-I]
Police Commissioner .... Appellant
Surat City Police Seva Sadan Athwalines
SURAT, GUJARAT
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat-i .... Respondent
New Building...Opp. Gandhi Baug, Chowk Bazar, Surat, Gujarat-395001 WITH SERVICE TAX Appeal No. 13637 of 2014-DB (ST/Cross/10162/2015) [Arising out of Order-in-Original/Appeal No SUR-EXCUS-001-COM-023-14-15 dated 04.08.2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-I] Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat-i .... Appellant New Building...Opp. Gandhi Baug, Chowk Bazar, Surat, Gujarat-395001 VERSUS Police Commissioner .... Respondent Surat City Police Seva Sadan Athwalines SURAT, GUJARAT APPEARANCE :
Shri Rahul Gajera, Advocate for the Appellant - Assessee Shri Rajesh Nathan, Assistant Commissioner, (AR) for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) DATE OF HEARING : 06.02.2024 DATE OF DECISION : 15.02.2024 FINAL ORDER NO. 10411-10412/2024 RAMESH NAIR :
The issue involved is that the service of security escort/ detecting agency provided by the Police Commissioner, Surat and consideration 2 ST/10515/2015 & ST/13637/2014-DB received their against is liable to service tax or otherwise. Against the common order assessee the police Commissioner filed Appeal No ST/10515/2015 contesting the demand of service tax. Revenue also filed Appeal No. ST/13637/2014 seeking imposition of penalty which was not imposed by the adjudicating authority. Since the Revenue appeal is consequential to the demand of service tax, assessee's appeal is taken first for consideration.
2. Shri Rahul Gajera, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the issue of levy of service tax on the police department for various service such as escort service, detecting agency service provided to various agencies and consideration received here against is not liable to service tax as held in various following judgments:-
(a) Deputy Commissioner of Police Jodhpur vs. Commissioner - 2017 (48) STR 275 -(Tri. Del) upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at Commissioner vs. Deputy Commissioner - 2018 (11) GSTL J133 (SC)
(b) Jamnagar Police vs. CCE and ST, Rajkot - 2023 (12) TMI 183-
CESTAT AHMEDABAD
3. Shri Rajesh Nathan, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order.
4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that the issue is no longer res-integra as in the various judgments including the judgments cited by the assessee, it is categorically held that security service provided by the police department 3 ST/10515/2015 & ST/13637/2014-DB to various agencies and consideration their against received by them is not liable to service tax under security agency service. Therefore, the issue is no longer res-integra. Therefore, the demand is set aside, consequently no penalty can be imposed as sought in the Revenue's appeal.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal of Assessee is allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed. CO also stands disposed of.
(Pronounce in the open court on 15.02.2024) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) (C L Mahar) Member (Technical) KL