https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773248 CESTAT Chennai dismissed the Department's appeal challenging the dropping of proceedings against the Respondent. The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority correctly dropped demands raised under "erection, commissioning and installation service" and "commercial or industrial construction service" categories, as the Department cannot travel beyond the show cause notice to confirm demands under different categories like "works contract service." The Tribunal rejected the Department's argument that the adjudicating authority violated administrative instructions by not following the call book procedure, ruling that quasi-judicial orders cannot be set aside for non-adherence to administrative circulars when the legal position is tenable. en-us Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:07:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773248 CESTAT Chennai dismissed the Department's appeal challenging the dropping of proceedings against the Respondent. The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority correctly dropped demands raised under "erection, commissioning and installation service" and "commercial or industrial construction service" categories, as the Department cannot travel beyond the show cause notice to confirm demands under different categories like "works contract service." The Tribunal rejected the Department's argument that the adjudicating authority violated administrative instructions by not following the call book procedure, ruling that quasi-judicial orders cannot be set aside for non-adherence to administrative circulars when the legal position is tenable. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773248