https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757630 The CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appellant's appeal against service tax demand. The tribunal held that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) proposed classification under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service under Section 65(105)(zzq), but the adjudicating authority wrongly confirmed demand under Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earthmoving and Demolition classification. This change violated natural justice principles. The tribunal further ruled that the services were properly classifiable as Works Contract Service under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of Finance Act, 1994, involving both goods supply and services. The impugned orders were set aside with consequential relief granted. en-us Wed, 21 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Aug 2024 08:37:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757630 The CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appellant's appeal against service tax demand. The tribunal held that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) proposed classification under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service under Section 65(105)(zzq), but the adjudicating authority wrongly confirmed demand under Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation and Earthmoving and Demolition classification. This change violated natural justice principles. The tribunal further ruled that the services were properly classifiable as Works Contract Service under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of Finance Act, 1994, involving both goods supply and services. The impugned orders were set aside with consequential relief granted. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 21 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757630