Court rules in favor of petitioner on new service tax category, but holds them accountable for registered categories.

The court found in favor of the petitioner regarding the imposition of service tax under a new category not mentioned in the show-cause notice. However, the petitioner was held accountable for not paying service tax under registered categories. The court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the demand within eight weeks and instructed the Tribunal to decide the appeal within six months. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of Service Tax and Penalties.
2. Validity of Show-Cause Notice.
3. Tribunal's Order on Pre-Deposit Condition.
4. Jurisdiction under Article 226 despite Alternative Remedy.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Service Tax and Penalties:
By a show-cause notice dated 18.09.2009, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur intended to impose a service tax of Rs. 3,13,41,209 along with Education Cess and S & HE Cess, interest under Section 75, and penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner was providing taxable services under "Commercial or Industrial Construction Services" as a Sub-Contractor. It was alleged that the petitioner did not pay the proper service tax for Town maintenance services provided to Durgapur Steel Plant. The petitioner registered under "Commercial or Industrial Construction Services" in August 2007 but failed to pay the service tax before and after registration. The demand was confirmed by an order dated 24.08.2010, which the petitioner challenged before the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

2. Validity of Show-Cause Notice:
The petitioner argued that the authorities cannot impose service tax under a new category not mentioned in the show-cause notice. The service tax was demanded under "Commercial or Industrial Construction Services," but the respondent imposed the duty under "Works Contracts Services." The petitioner relied on Supreme Court judgments (Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Shital International, and Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-I vs. Champdany Industries Ltd.) to argue that the authorities cannot make out a new case divorced from the show-cause notice.

3. Tribunal's Order on Pre-Deposit Condition:
The CESTAT directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the Service Tax within eight weeks. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal should have waived the pre-deposit condition due to a strong prima facie case, citing judgments (J.N. Chemical Pvt. Ltd. vs. CEGAT, Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochem Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, ITC Ltd. vs. Commissioner (Appeals), Custom and Central Excise, Meerut-I, and Sri Krishna vs. Union of India) that emphasize the discretionary power to waive pre-deposit in cases of undue hardship.

4. Jurisdiction under Article 226 despite Alternative Remedy:
The respondents argued that the original order was appellable and the writ petition was not maintainable. The petitioner countered that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar under Article 226, citing Union of India vs. Classic Credit Ltd. and Ruby Rubber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cal-II. The court acknowledged that while the petitioner had an alternative remedy, the jurisdiction under Article 226 was not completely ousted due to manifest injustice.

Conclusion:
The court found that the petitioner made a strong prima facie case that the Commissioner went beyond the show-cause notice. However, the petitioner was also found guilty of not paying service tax under registered categories. The court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the demand within eight weeks and ordered the Tribunal to decide the appeal within six months. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---