9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emption, abatement etc. It is for this reason, the assessee should be put to notice about the correct classification under which the demand was sought to be made, so that defence can be made to reply for such allegation - the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) going beyond the SCN is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - ST/86456/14-Mum - A/85125/18 - Dated:- 31-1-2018 - Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for appellant Shri V.R. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent ORDER Per: S.S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.3.2014 passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s one of the players who has been selected to play for Rajasthan Royals. The department took a view that the appellant is rendering taxable services to the franchisee and is not paying the service tax. Therefore the department asked the appellant to furnish the details. The appellant submitted the copies of income-tax returns for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 along with TDS details. After scrutiny of the documents and the agreements between the appellant and its franchisee, the department came to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to pay the service tax on the franchisee fee received by him. On these allegations, a show cause notice was issued proposing to demand the payment of service tax. After following due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further submitted that it is well settled that the department cannot travel beyond the show cause notice and whatever case has been set up by the department in the show cause notice fails and therefore the demand has to be set aside. In support of these submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Swapnil Asnodkar vs. CCE, Goa - 2018-TIOL-92-CESTAT-MUM; (ii) Warner Hindustan Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad - 1999 (113) ELT 24; (iii) CCE, Goa vs. R.K. Construction - 2016 (41) STR 879; (iv) Balaji Contractor vs. CCE, Jaipur-II - 2017 (52) STR 259; (v) Sourav Ganguly vs. UOI - 2016 (43) STR 482 (Cal.); Learned counsel also submitted that in fact the appellant-assessee is not providing any service to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
