Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Central Industrial Security Force vs Cce, Pondicherry on 18 July, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
ST/COD/40033/2015 and ST/40149/2015
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.67/2009 (C) dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry).
Central Industrial Security Force : Applicant
Vs.
CCE, Pondicherry : Respondent
Appearance Shri Rajesh Kumar Arya, Asst.Commandant CISF, for the Appellant Shri A. Cletus ADC (AR), for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member Honble Shri C.J. Mathew, Technical Member Date of Hearing/Decision: 18.07.2016 FINAL ORDER No. 41200 / 2016 Per P.K. Choudhary The appellant has filed application for condonation of delay of 1802 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 67/2009 dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry.
2. Shri Rajesh Kumar Arya, Asst. Commandant CISF, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is a Government department and had to seek prior approval from the higher authorities and the matter was also under consideration by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time hence, the delay occurred. He further submits they were under the impression that the appeal filed against OIO No. 8/2011 dated 25.02.2011 would cover the issue involved in the present impugned order and hence, did not file a separate appeal against the impugned order. He submits that the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate and prays for condonation of delay of 1802 days in preferring the appeal. In support of his contention, he relies on the decision of the Tribunal at Mumbai in their own case reported in 2014 (33) STR 55 (Tri.-Mum.), wherein delay of 826 days was condoned and held that there is no tax liability on the appellant in view of the ad hoc exemption order No. 1/1/2011, dated 1.7.2011, exempting Security Agency Service rendered by the appellant. Hence, he prays that in view of the settled position, the appeal itself may be decided.
3. The Ld. AR, Shri A. Cletus, ADC, appeared on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority and submits that as per the definition of Section 65 (94) and 65 (105) (w) Finance Act, 1994, the appellants providing of security agency service is covered by the above definition and hence they are liable to pay service tax on the cost of deployment of the force charges collected from the industrial undertakings belonging to the Govt. of India.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records. On going through the reliance placed by the appellant in their own case, wherein the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal being satisfied with the very same reason condoned the delay of 826 days and allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as under:-
6.?In view of the ad hoc exemption order No. 1/1/2011, dated 1-7-2011 exempting Security Agency Service rendered by the appellant, there is no tax liability on the appellant. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and also allow the appeal by extending the exemption granted by the Government. The stay application is also disposed of. Following the same ratio, the delay is condoned in this appeal also. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court) (C.J. MATHEW) (P.K. CHOUDHARY) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BB 1