9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued to the appellant proposes to classify the demand under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service under Section 65(105)(zzq) of the Act, whereas in the impugned order the demand has been confirmed by changing the classification under the head Site Formation and clearance, excavation and Earthmoving and Demolition which cannot be done and hence the impugned order is bad in law. Secondly, it is undisputed that the services rendered by the appellant is classifiable under Works Contract Service as provide under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 as it involves both supply of goods as well as service; once, it is not disputed, it is the works contract service then demand of service tax under site formation and clearan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of both the appeals are given here in below: Appeal No. ST/2692/2012 ST/59149/2013 Period 2009-10 2010-11 OIO CHD-CEX-001-COM-024-12 dated 18.05.2012 31/ST/CHD-II/2013/742 dated 30.04.2013 Duty Amount Rs. 12,32,280/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Rs. 1,78,928/- under Section 73 of the Act Penalty Not imposed Rs. 1,48,928 under Section 78 of the Act 7. Briefly the facts of the present case are that appellants are engaged in the business of providing construction services. During the relevant period, the Appellant entered into a contract with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ( HPCL ) for earthwork including excavation, earth filling, transportation, compaction, dismantling of brickwork/wall/floor on the basis of the directio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in the show cause notice in the present case there was no allegation for proposing demand on the appellant for services provided to HPCL under the head site formation and clearance, excavation and earthmoving and demolition'. 12.3. She further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that the demand which has been confirmed by going beyond the allegation in the show cause notice is not sustainable as it is violative of principles of natural justice. In this regard, she relied upon the following decisions: Sainik Mining Allied Services Ltd. vs. Commissioner of S.T., Delhi 2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 156 (Tri. - Del.). IAL India Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2023 (7) TMI 1171- CESTAT CHANDIGARH. Jagatjit Industries Ltd. Versus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax Cochin- CCE 2019 (1) TMI 503-CESTAT Bangalore. Roman Tarmat Ltd Versus C.C., C.E. S. T-Cochin-CCE 2019 (9) TMI 1107 - CESTAT BANGALORE. Nand Ji Mishra Contractor vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Chandigarh-II 2024 (6) TMI 248-CESTAT Chandigarh. Raj Inter Decor Private Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise, and Service Tax, Delhi-III 2023 (7) TMI 1180 CESTAT CHANDIGARH. Bharat Sanchar Nigam vs. UOI 2006 (2) S.T.R. 161 (S.C.) 13.1 She further submits that the show cause notice in the present case has not disputed that there was supply of material along with the services supplied by the appellant. This fact remains undisputed by the department also in the impugned orders. She further submitted that once the serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
