CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Service Tax Appeal No. 60756 of 2017 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 33/ST/DLH/2017 dated 21.06.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Excise & Service Tax, New Delhi]

M/s Central Industrial Security Force ……Appellant Unit Stationed At NFL, Panipat-Gohana Road, Panipat, Haryana 132106 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Goods & Service ……Respondent Tax, CGST Panchkula GST Bhawan, Sector 25, Panchkula, Haryana 134116 APPEARANCE:

Shri Sagar Verma, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Varun Sharma, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 60237/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 25.02.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 09.03.2026 S.S. GARG:

The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.06.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and Order-

in-Original was upheld.

2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is stationed at NFL, Gohana Road, Panipat and is providing Security services to the M/s National Fertilizers Limited (NFL) which is a Public Sector Undertakings. The Department entertained a view that the rent-free accommodation, electricity and other facilities such as medical expenses, stationery, telephone, vehicle running etc. provided by the NFL to CISF personnel constitute additional consideration under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and are therefore, includible in the taxable value of security agency services. On these allegations, a show cause notices was issued proposing to demand of service tax. The appellant controverted the allegations in the show cause notice by filing the reply to the show cause notice and after following the due process, the original authority confirmed the demand under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 by invoking the extended period of limitation and also demanded interest under Section 75 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and also imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeal before the appellate authority who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law; and binding judicial precedents in the appellant’s own case by various Benches of the Tribunal. He further submits that the issue involved in present case is no more res integra and identical demand raised against the appellant in respect of similar facilities provided by the service recipients have been consistently set aside by the various Benches of this Tribunal. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:

 Central Industrial Security Force Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam, reported as (2024) 25 Centax 96 (Tri.-Hyd.)

 Central Industrial Security Force Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, reported as (2024) 18 Centax 179 (Tri.-Ahmd.)

4.1 He further submits that the ratio of the decisions of the above judgments is squarely applicable to the appellant and it has been held that rent-free accommodation, electricity provided by NFL do not constitute consideration charged by the appellant for rendering security services. There was no monetary flow from NFL to CISF on this account, nor there was any contractual stipulation enhancing the consideration payable for the services rendered. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant discharged service tax on the cost of deployment, salary and allowances, clothing, arms and ammunition, which constituted the actual consideration. He further submits that the Departme