TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal limits review scope to issues raised in original show-cause notices</h1> <h3>Inductotherm (India) (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad</h3> Inductotherm (India) (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad - [2009] 23 STT 124 (AHD. - CESTAT), 2010 (19) S.T.R. 738 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:Expansion of scope of proceedings at the appellate level without issuing a fresh show-cause notice.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad involved a case where the appellants were issued show-cause notices concerning duty demands related to erection and commissioning charges under consulting and engineering services, as well as royalty charges under the same category. The Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed these notices, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). During the appellate process, the appellant presented various Tribunal decisions to the Commissioner (Appeals), who agreed with them but remanded the matter back to the Original Adjudicating Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the authority did not examine the disputed issue in light of the presented decisions.Furthermore, the Commissioner (Appeals) considered other charges paid by the appellant to foreign collaborators, suggesting that these charges and activities might also be subject to service tax under consulting and engineering services. Despite the remand, the appellant objected to this expansion of the proceedings, arguing that these additional activities were not part of the original show-cause notice. The appellant contended that if the Revenue believed these activities should be taxed, a fresh show-cause notice should have been issued.The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both sides, acknowledged that the scope of proceedings should not be broadened at the appellate level. However, without expressing any opinion on the factual aspect, the Tribunal directed the Original Adjudicating Authority to reexamine the issues already within the show-cause notices' scope. The Tribunal emphasized that the authority should confine its decision to the matters originally raised in the notice. The appeal was therefore disposed of with these directions, maintaining the focus on the issues initially presented without expanding the scope at the appellate stage.
TaxTMI 