9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authorised Representative of the Respondent ORDER The sole issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the demand can be confirmed under a head that was not proposed in the show cause notice. 2. The records indicate that a show cause notice dated April 16, 2012 was issued to the appellant proposing a demand under the category 'maintenance or repair service' as defined u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke submissions at this stage. 5. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned authorized representative appearing for the Department have been considered. 6. It is not disputed that the demand has been confirmed under categories not proposed in the show cause notice. This issue was also examined at length by a Division Bench of the Tribunal in India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Ashish Ramesh Dasarwar v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Nagpur [2017-TIOL-3230-CESTAT-MUM]. The Division Bench of the Tribunal held as follows : "6. As regards the period after 1-6-2007, since the demand was raised under "commercial or industrial construction service", whereas admittedly the service is correctly classifiable under works contract service, the demand raised unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ularly in view of the decision of the Tribunal in case of Ashish Ramesh Dasarwar (supra) wherein Tribunal has taken the view that demand for Service Tax is to be set aside if the Show Cause Notice proposed a classification different from WCS for construction activity." 21. A Division Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Gurjar Construction as Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur II [2019 (5) TMI 717 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
