Roex Security and Maintenance Services Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
CESTAT Kolkata considered an appeal by a security agency against a service tax demand for 2014-15. A Show Cause Notice dated 11.10.2019 proposed a demand of ₹65,56,165 by invoking the extended period. After adjudication, ₹64,97,181 was dropped and ₹58,984 was confirmed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confirmed demand.
The Tribunal found that the demand arose from the appellant’s Income Tax Form 26 and noted that, after reconciliation, only ₹47,860 plus ₹11,124 could be confirmed. The appellant was registered with the Service Tax division and had been paying service tax. The lower authorities had also accepted the appellant’s eligibility for the 75% abatement applicable to the service.
CESTAT observed that more than 99.9% of the original demand had been disproved through factual evidence. It held that the remaining shortfall of ₹47,860 plus ₹11,124 constituted a minor error and did not establish suppression. The Tribunal further noted that the ₹11,124 service tax demand relating to legal and consultancy services would be eligible as CENVAT Credit.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that no case of suppression had been made out and set aside the confirmed demand on account of time bar. Consequential relief, if any, was allowed in accordance with law.
