By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JUNE 28, 2014: THE appellant is the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Civil Line, Nagpur.

He is before the CESTAT because the CCE, Nagpur is after him to pay Service Tax on the security service provided by him & his team for the IPL matches hosted by Vidarbha Cricket Association during the period March, 2006 to March, 2011.

Revenue has computed the Service Tax on the basis of the invoices raised by the Police department for the additional security provided.

The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax along with interest and penalty. The appellant challenged the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals) who directed the appellant to make pre-deposit of entire service tax which appellant failed to do so and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of section 83 of the FA, 1994 r/w section 35F of the CEA, 1944.

Before the CESTAT, the appellant submitted that during the impugned period the liability of service tax arises on "actual receipt" of the remuneration for the services provided. Inasmuch as since the appellant had not received any amount from Vidarbha Cricket Association ,therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax. It is further submitted that the security provided by the police is not taxable during the relevant time.

The Bench observed -

"5. Considering the fact that during the impugned period, service tax liability arises at the time of remuneration received towards service provided as no amount has been received by the appellant, therefore, appellant has made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit. Accordingly, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of impugned demand."

Noting that the order was not passed on merits by the Commissioner(A), the matter was remanded to decide the issue on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.

The Appeal as well as stay application Swas disposed in the above terms.

In passing: Baghun ghein…

(See 2014-TIOL-1146-CESTAT-MUM)