Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Invincible Security Services & ... vs Cce, Noida on 25 September, 2008
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
COURT NO.II
E/Appeal No.513-517/2006-SM
(Arising out of order in appeal No.119-123/CE/Appl/Noida/06 dated 22.8.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Noida)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr.P.K. Das, Member(Judicial))
1. Whether Press reporters may be allowed to see the
order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not ?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the Order ?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the
Departmental authorities?
______________________________________________________
M/s Invincible Security Services & Others Appellant
(Rep. by Shri Manmohan Sharma, Advocate)
Vs
CCE, Noida Respondent
(Rep. by Shri RK. Verma, DR) Coram: Honble Mr P.K. Das, Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing: 25.9.08 Order No. /2008-SM(BR) Per P.K. Das:
All these appeals are arising out a common order and therefore, these are being taken up together for disposal.
2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellants are engaged in the business of providing Security Services. The Appellants had entered into an agreement with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Moradabad (in short BSNL) for providing security service. It is revealed from the agreement that service tax will be paid by M/s BSNL. It is further revealed from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that M/s BSNL Ltd paid the tax and filed the return in respect of services provided by the appellants. Show Cause Notices were issued proposing demand of tax, penalty and interest for non-payment of tax by the appellants. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of tax and also imposed penalties alongwith interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty to 50% of the amount of tax.
3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), it is seen that there is no dispute that tax was paid by BSNL Moradabad. The learned Advocate submits that they have also paid the interest for delay in payment of tax by BSNL. He further submits that the appellants are a small organization and providing service as per agreement with BSNL, a Government of India Undertaking.
4. I find that there is no dispute that the tax was paid by BSNL which is also admitted in the order itself. Therefore, demand of tax is not sustainable. The learned DR submits that liability of payment of tax on the appellant cannot be discharged by the BSNL. I agree with the leaned DR to that extent that it may be a administrative problem. But I find from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that BSNL is a registered with the Central Excise Department and filed the return and deposited the tax with the Commissionerate of Moradabad which has been accepted by them. Therefore, the contention of the learned DR is not sustainable. I also notice that the appellants paid the interest for delay in payment by BSNL. So, the demand of tax and penalty are not sustainable. In view of that, the impugned orders are set aside. The Appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court).
(P.K. Das)
MPS* Member(Judicial)