Tribunal allows assessee's appeal, rejects Department's claim. Emphasizes adherence to show cause notice.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal filed by the assessee-Appellants and rejecting the appeal filed by the Department. The Tribunal found no merit in the Department's claims and emphasized adherence to the scope of the show cause notice.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged evasion of Service Tax by the assessee-Appellants.
2. Validity of the demand based on parallel/duplicate invoices.
3. Services provided in the State of J&K and SEZ Units.
4. Services related to horticulture and cleaning services.
5. Unregistered office operations.
6. Scope of show cause notice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Evasion of Service Tax by the Assessee-Appellants:
The Department alleged that the assessee-Appellants were evading Service Tax by collecting it from clients but not depositing it with the Government. The assessee-Appellants argued that all payments were received through banking channels and reflected in their balance sheets and bank statements. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the Department's claim of cash payments and unaccounted services, especially since the recipients were corporate entities required to make payments through banking channels.

2. Validity of the Demand Based on Parallel/Duplicate Invoices:
The Department's investigation revealed the presence of parallel/duplicate invoices, suggesting unaccounted services. However, the Tribunal noted that these were merely extra printed copies from computers, and no original invoices were missing. The Tribunal found no justification for the demand based on these invoices, as the Department failed to verify payments from the recipients' books of accounts.

3. Services Provided in the State of J&K and SEZ Units:
The Tribunal confirmed that services provided in J&K are not subject to Service Tax due to the non-applicability of the Act in that region. Similarly, services provided to SEZ units were exempt under Section 93 of the Act by virtue of Notification No. 4/2004. The Tribunal found that the assessee-Appellants did not charge or collect Service Tax from SEZ units, and there was no evidence of Service Tax being received for these services.

4. Services Related to Horticulture and Cleaning Services:
The Tribunal observed that services related to horticulture, including maintenance of lawns, gardens, and grass, are exempt from Service Tax under Section 65(24b) read with Section 65(105)(zzzd) of the Finance Act, 1994. Additionally, cleaning services provided to Ajmer Fort, an archaeological structure, were also exempt as per the order supplied by the Archaeological Survey of India.

5. Unregistered Office Operations:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee-Appellants had an unregistered office in Bhiwadi operating under a different name but as a component of the main company. Since all orders and payments were accounted for by the main company, the Tribunal considered the unregistered office as a branch unit with no separate business activities.

6. Scope of Show Cause Notice:
The Tribunal emphasized that the show cause notice is the foundation of the case, and any demand or charge must be within its scope. The Tribunal found that the Department's claim regarding services provided to SEZ units without approval from the Approval Committee was beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Citing precedents, the Tribunal reiterated that the adjudicating authority cannot go beyond the scope of the show cause notice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal filed by the assessee-Appellants and rejecting the appeal filed by the Department. The Tribunal found no merit in the Department's claims and emphasized adherence to the scope of the show cause notice.

---