2017 (5) TMI 187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iod 10.09.2004 to 31.03.2008. The allegation is that they have not properly classified their taxable services, which should be properly categorized under completion and finishing service of commercial/residential building. By improper classification of taxable service generally as under construction services, the respondent were alleged to have availed ineligible abatement under notification no.15/04-STfollowed by notification no.1/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006. The abatement under these notifications were not available for completion and finishing services. Even otherwise, the respondents availed cenvat credit during the period, which barred them from availing the abatement under these notifications. 2. The Original Authority adjudicated the cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the respondent did make submissions for classification of service before the Original Authority, which was rejected. However, the respondent did get relief on other grounds. As the Revenue is agitating against the basis of the relief granted to the respondent, we find that the respondent can revive their submissions made before the Original Authority. In this connection, we refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Cotton Spg. & Weaving Mills - 1998 (99) ELT 8 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the respondent cannot be precluded in the appeal from canvassing for reversal of a finding contained in the impugned judgement despite its end result being in their favour. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in co....