9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) could not have dealt with an issue not raised in the show cause notice. Period prior to 01.06.2007 - HELD THAT:- Once it was found as the fact that the nature of services provided by the appellant were works contract service and this service had not been carved out of the earlier entries relating to maintenance and repair services and manpower recruitment agency services, it has to be held that no service tax could have been demanded. In any case, the appellant had not rendered manpower recruitment services and, therefore, even otherwise, the demand could not have been confirmed under a different category. In fact, no reasons have been given by the Commissioner (Appeals) to confirm the demand, except stating that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the by the show cause notice dated 14.10.2009. 2. The appellant had performed certain works under contract issued by the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board and MP Power Generating Company. A show cause notice dated 14.10.2009 was issued to the appellant alleging that the appellant was providing maintenance and repair services and manpower recruitment agency services to Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board and MP Power Generating Company, which services were leviable to service tax with effect from 01.07.2003 and 16.06.2005 respectively but the appellant had not paid service tax. The extended period of limitation was also invoked and the appellant was called upon to pay service tax on maintenance and repair services and manpower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This finding was recorded by the Joint Commissioner after a careful perusal of the documents including the deduction of VAT under MP VAT Act, 2002. Thus, the proceedings initiated against the appellant by the show cause notice dated 14.10.2009 was dropped. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) divided the period from prior to 01.06.2007 and post 01.06.2007. For the period post 01.06.2007, after noting that the appellant had paid service tax under works contract services, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand raised in the show cause notice holding that the appellant had not produced the works contact nor the bills/invoices for the said period. For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntries relating to maintenance and repair services and manpower recruitment agency services, it has to be held that no service tax could have been demanded. In any case, the appellant had not rendered manpower recruitment services and, therefore, even otherwise, the demand could not have been confirmed under a different category. In fact, no reasons have been given by the Commissioner (Appeals) to confirm the demand, except stating that the show cause notice can be ignored. 8. For the period post 01.06.2007, it is not in dispute that the appellant had rendered works contract and had also paid service tax. Without giving any reasons as to why service tax demanded under maintenance and repair services and manpower recruitment agency servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
