2017 (9) TMI 455 - AT - Service Tax

Validity of SCN - case of appellant is that the impugned order is bad and unsustainable, as there is no bifurcations of the demand given in the SCN and also no bifurcations is there in the impugned Order-in-Original - Held that - the SCN is vague and unsustainable, as it fails to give the breakup under the different heads of service, allegedly provided by the appellant - also, the SCN is self contradictory, as in para-5 of the SCN, detailed breakup is given of the services provided by the appellant and/or the business activities, whereas in the later part of the show cause notice, it is alleged that appellant have failed to provide proper details and/or invoices etc - there is no case of disobedience of any summons or notices or any information sought by the Department - SCN is bad and unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Original demanding service tax, classification of services provided, lack of detailed breakup in show cause notice, sustainability of impugned order.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the Order-in-Original demanding service tax of ?3,61,00,224/- passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida. The appellant was engaged in services like Site Formation and Clearance, excavation, earthmoving, demolition, and Supply of Goods without being registered for service tax. A search revealed the nature of services provided, including earth excavation, soil supply, and supply of JCB Machines and Dumpers. The appellant's proprietor admitted to the activities and agreed to pay the service tax. The demand was based on the gross turnover without a detailed breakup for each financial year.

The appellant contended that the impugned order lacked specificity in the demand breakup, making it unsustainable. The Counsel cited a precedent where a similar vague show cause notice was quashed. The appellant had provided a detailed turnover breakup in response to the show cause notice, but the Commissioner failed to consider it. The revenue department did not allege non-cooperation from the appellant in providing information. The Tribunal found the show cause notice to be vague and contradictory, lacking essential details and breakup of the demand, leading to the order being set aside.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the show cause notice was unsustainable due to its vagueness and lack of detailed accusations and demand breakup. The notice was self-contradictory, providing detailed services breakdown in one section but alleging lack of proper details in another. As there was no evidence of non-cooperation from the appellant, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, granting the appellant consequential benefits. Other grounds of appeal were left open for future consideration.