Page 105 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., SURAT v. JALARAM SECURITY SERVICES 191
pression of facts on their part. Hence, the demand for the extended period was
wrongly invoked. He placed reliance on the following judgments :-
(a) Industrial Security Associates v. CCE, Kanpur - 2013 (31) S.T.R. 489
(Tri. - Del.)
(b) Young Brothers Transporters & Contractors v. CCE, Meerut - 2017 (6)
G.S.T.L. 513 (Tri. - Del.)
(c) H.M. Singh and Company v. CC, CE & ST - 2015 (37) S.T.R. 172 (All.).
3. As regards the Revenue’s appeal, he submits that no option of 25%
reduced penalty as per proviso to Section 78 is given by the Adjudicating Au-
thority therefore, the said benefit was extended by the Commissioner (Appeals)
is in accordance with law. Hence, Revenue’s appeal is not sustainable.
4. On behalf of the Revenue, Shri T.K. Sikdar, Learned Assistant Com-
missioner (AR) appeared and submits that for providing security service, the
gross amount charged by the appellant for their services, including the Salary, PF
and ESI is liable to be taxed and no deduction is permissible on this count as the
payment of salary, PF and ESI is by the appellant themselves and not on behalf
of the service recipient. Therefore, the salary of the guards, PF, ESI, etc. cannot be
deducted from the gross value, for the purpose of charging service tax.
5. He submits that the appellant had the liberty to pay service tax de-
mand, interest and 25% of penalty within one month from the date of adjudica-
tion order which they have failed to do so. Therefore, the Commissioner (Ap-
peals) was wrong in extending the benefit of reduced 25% penalty. Therefore, the
Revenue’s appeal may be allowed. He placed reliance on the following judg-
ments :-
(a) 2014 (304) E.L.T. 342 (Uttarakhand) - Doon Security Services v. Union
of India
(b) 2017 (52) S.T.R. 42 (Tri. - Del.) - Rajasthan Ex-Servicemen Limited v.
CCE, Jaipur-I
(c) 2018 (15) G.S.T.L. 328 (Raj.) - Rajasthan Ex-Servicemen Welfare Cooper-
ative Society Limited v. CCE (Appeals), Jaipur-I
(d) 2015 (39) S.T.R. 494 (Tri. - Mum.) - CCE, Pune-II v. Commander Secu-
rity Services
(e) 2006 (3) S.T.R. 197 (Tri. - Del.) - New Industrial Security Force v. CCE,
Kanpur
(f) 2006 (4) S.T.R. 116 (Tri. - Del.) - Panther Detective Services v. CCE,
Kanpur
(g) 2015 (38) S.T.R. 588 (Tri. - Mum.) - Bombay Intelligence Security (I)
Limited v. CCE, Mumbai-II
(h) 2012 (28) S.T.R. 3 (Ker.) - Security Agencies Association v. Union of In-
dia
(i) 2009 (15) S.T.R. 735 (Tri. - Kol.) - Premier Security Enterprises v. CCE,
Patna
(j) 2008 (10) S.T.R. 304 (Tri. - Chennai) - Sudharson Security Bureau v.
CCE, Madurai
(k) 2007 (5) S.T.R. 214 (Tri. - Del.) - Punjab Ex-Servicemen Corpn. v. CCE,
Chandigarh.

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  105