2017 (9) TMI 455

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... up 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.
Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Prabhat Kumar & Shri R.P. Singh, Advocates for Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The appellant have challenged the Order-in-Original No. 62/Commissioner/Noida/2013-14 dated 10/03/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed wherein he stated that he is engaged in the work of earth excavation, soil supply, soil spreading, etc., that his firm also owns JCB Machines and Dumpers which are given on rent and that his firm is engaged in the above work since 2004. His firm has done work, mainly for clients namely 3C, HCL, DR Builders, Shishodia contractors, etc. and his firm is not registered with the Department because as per his understanding the work done by him did not attract service tax. Further, he stated that he would now pay the appropriate amount of service tax as found payable. Thereafter, in due course, vide separate challans, the appellant deposited ₹ 19,57,000/-. As per the SCN, the resumed records were scrutinized, and work orders of the agreem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not sustainable. The learned Counsel relies on the ruling of a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of United Telecom Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad reported at 2011 (22) STR 571 (Tri-Bang), wherein this Tribunal had quashed the impugned order, on the ground that the show cause notice is vague, as it does not give the breakup of the demand. Although the show cause notice herein discusses various grounds of service, the learned counsel have demonstrated that the show cause notice is self contradictory as in para-5, it gives the breakup, work wise, but subsequently alleges that the appellant have failed to provide the details to the revenue and as such the demand is being made on the gross receipts. He further pointed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X