Tribunal sets aside service tax demand due to inconsistent categorization, emphasizing coherence between proposed and confirmed categories.

The Tribunal set aside the demand for service tax amounting to around Rs. 1.11 crores as the confirmed categories differed from those proposed in the show cause notice. Deviating from the proposed classification without clear allegations rendered the order unsustainable, following legal precedents. The decision highlighted the importance of coherence between proposed and confirmed categories to maintain the demand's validity, leading to the appeal's allowance. Other grounds raised by the appellant, such as the issue of limitation, were not addressed.

---

---

Issues:
Classification of services under different categories than proposed in the show cause notice.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants who were registered for providing Construction Services for Commercial or Industrial buildings and civil structures. They were issued a show cause notice for short payment of service tax amounting to around Rs. 1.11 crores. The Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand under categories like 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service', 'Maintenance and Repair Service', and 'Manpower Supply Agency Service'. The appellant challenged this order before the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that the proposal in the show cause notice was for demand confirmation under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service, but the demand was confirmed under different categories. Citing a precedent, the appellant contended that if the classification of service differs from the one proposed in the show cause notice, the order is not sustainable. The Tribunal considered the submissions and referred to a previous case where it was held that allegations in the show cause notice must be clear, and adopting a different classification of service amounts to passing an order beyond the notice's scope.

After reviewing the case and the precedent, the Tribunal concluded that confirming service tax under a different category than proposed in the show cause notice renders the demand unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal did not address other grounds raised by the appellant, including the issue of limitation.

In summary, the judgment focused on the importance of aligning the confirmed demand with the categories proposed in the show cause notice. Any deviation from the proposed classification without clear allegations in the notice renders the order unsustainable, as established by legal precedents. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the necessity for coherence between the proposed and confirmed categories to maintain the validity of the demand.

---