Page 103 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., SURAT v. JALARAM SECURITY SERVICES 189
(3) What is the relevant date of reckoning the time limit in such cases?
11. As can be seen from clause (b) to proviso to sub-section (2) of Sec-
tion 11B unspent advance deposits lying in balance in applicant’s current account
are covered by Section 11B. Once they are covered by Section 11B it is not open
for anyone to pick and choose which portion of Section 11B applies to them and
which does not. The entire provisions of Section 11B apply in the absence of any
specific clause indicating otherwise. The next question is the relevant date for
reckoning the time limit in such cases, which has been defined in the explanation
to Section 11B. Clause (f) of this explanation covers the present case i.e., “in any
other case, the date of payment of duty”. Since the date of payment of duty has
yet to begun in case where an amount has been deposited only in the account
current but has not been utilized towards payment of Service Tax, the relevant
date has not yet begun in this case. Consequently, application for refund is with-
in the time limit and hence, needs to be sanctioned.
12. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed with consequential re-
lief, if any.
(Operative part of this order was pronounced in the open Court
on conclusion of hearing)

_______

2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 189 (Tri. - Ahmd.)

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, AHMEDABAD
[COURT NO. III]
S/Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (J) and Raju, Member (T)
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., SURAT
Versus
JALARAM SECURITY SERVICES
Final Order Nos. A/11995-11996/2019-WZB/AHD, dated 30-10-2019 in Misc.
Application No. ST/ORS/11030/2018 in Appeal Nos. ST/489 & 535/2010
Valuation (Service Tax) - Security service - Salary of security guards,
PF and ESI being not an expenditure incurred by appellant on behalf of the
service recipient, not reimbursable expenditures to be deducted from the gross
value of security service - Accordingly, gross amount charged towards provid-
ing service liable to Service Tax - Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 6]
Demand - Limitation - Extended period - Appellant not under bona
fide belief that only commission is chargeable to service and not the total gross
value of service provided by them, there being absolutely no ambiguity in
provisions of security service as to value on which Service Tax will be charge-
able - Extended period of limitation rightly invoked - Section 73 of Finance
Act, 1994. [para 7]
Penalty - Appellant despite clear provisions for value of security ser-
vice, paid Service Tax on commission only, bona fide not proved - Penalty im-
posed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 maintained. [para 8]

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  103