Page 165 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ]GENERAL SECURITY & INFORMATION SERVICES v. COMMR. OF CGST & C. EX.,
KOLKATA 555
List the appeal for hearing on 14th November 2019.
The stay application (GA No. 1352 of 2019) is disposed of.”
2. On 3rd February, 2020 in the course of hearing of the appeal we for-
mulated certain additional questions of law which are as follows :
(1) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
appeal based on the ground of breach of the principles of natural
justice does not relate to a question having a relation to the rate of
duty?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the
assessee seeks dismissal of the demand of the Revenue on the
ground of limitation, the appeal does not involve a question having
a relation to the rate of duty?
(3) If the aforesaid questions are answered in the affirmative, whether
this Court has the jurisdiction to hear the instant appeal?”
3. In short, the appellant has raised two grounds in support of this
appeal.
4. The first one is that the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 29th
June, 2018 was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice.
5. Secondly, the longer period of limitation was erroneously invoked to
fix the Service Tax liability on the appellant in relation to service rendered be-
tween September, 2001 and May, 2005 in respect of which the show cause notice
was issued on 27th March, 2007. The limitation for issuing the show cause notice
is one year, extendable to five years in case of suppression of materials by the
assessee.
6. However, the real disputes between the parties are with respect to
the type of service rendered. According to the appellant, they are rendering
watch and ward service, which is not a taxable service.
7. Mr. Das, Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant relies on a
certificate dated 4th December, 2018 issued by the Chief Operations Manager of
Metro Railway certifying that the appellant was acting “as facilitators for direct-
ing passengers through automated ticket gates, to guide commuters regarding
purchase of tickets, carrying baggages and other miscellaneous jobs relating to
overall upkeep of the premises. Their services are not similar to the services for
general purpose security duty.”
8. According to the respondent Revenue, a watch and ward service is
exempt from Service Tax whereas the service of security agency is not. Further,
they contend that the appellant is rendering the latter service. The appellant con-
tests the demand from service tax raised upon them by the Revenue for the
aforesaid period.
9. For this reason, Mr. Maity, Learned Advocate appearing for the re-
spondent, Revenue opposed entertainment of this appeal by this Court on the
ground that it involved adjudication with regard to the rate of tax, classification
of service and so on for which this Court had no jurisdiction under Section 35G
read with Section 35L(1)(b) of the said Act.
10. Mr. Das, Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant argued the
case in a different light.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  165