K.S. Jhaveri, J. - (1.) Defect/s is waived in Appeal No. 80/2017. Both these appeals are filed against the common judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and they were not granted total exemption.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant is a society formed for the resettlement of ex-servicemen. The appellant is required to comply with the Rajasthan State Government's regulations and rules. The appellant is a not for Profit society and is aimed at settling the ex-servicemen and is not involved in commercial activities and cannot be considered as 'commercial concern'. The impugned order dated 21-2-2017 passed by the Ld. CESTAT on Customs Appeal No. 1173 of 2011 [2017 (52) S.T.R. 42 (Tri.-Del.)], was received on behalf of the appellant on 17-3-2017 wherein Service Tax amounting to Rs. 64,80,971/- (Rs. 19,64,39/- for the period November, 2004 to September, 2007 and Rs. 45,16,632/- for the period October, 2007 to September, 2009 was levied on the appellant and appeal was partly allowed.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant in appeal No. 33/2017 framed the following substantial questions of law :- (i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by Ld. CESTAT is not unconstitutional, ex facie illegal, void and also perverse? (ii) Whether Ld. CESTAT has committed gross error of law by deciding the appeal on the preliminary issue of tax evasion and not adjudicating the contentions raised by the appellant on merits? (iii) Whether Service Tax under security agency can be levied for the period November, 2004 to 30-4-2006 as it is seen that the definition of 'security agency as given in Section 65(94) of the Act during the period of November, 2004 to 30-42006 stated that the service was required to be provided by a commercial concern and not by any person? (iv) Whether the Ld. CESTAT erred in applying Service Tax liabilities on the Rajasthan Ex-servicemen Welfare Cooperative Society which is not a commercial concern? (v) Whether the liabilities may be imposed retrospectively for the period when the cooperative society was not covered under the ambit of the Finance Act, 1994 to pay the Service Tax? (vi) Whether the Service Tax liability may be imposed on the appellant even when it could not recover the same from its clients, which are various departments of the Government and more specifically after the order dated 17-4-2008 wherein the State has agreed to pay the Service Tax? (vii) Whether accruing profits negate the nature of a charitable organization? ;