TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se notice that the appellant had rendered various services i.e. Construction/repair or renovation of various Government buildings, laying of pipelines for various Government authorities like, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, MIDC, KDMC, Surat Municipal Corporation and Construction or renovation of Sewerage Treatment Plant or Waste Purification Plant for Municipal Corporation of the State of Gujarat. A show-cause notice has been issued to the appellant claiming the classification of the services rendered by the appellant as Management, Maintenance & Repair Service (MMRS)/ Commercial & Industrial Construction Service (CICS)/Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services (ECIS). The appellant contested the show-cause notice on merits....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcise Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 2015 (34) STR 913. It is his submission that now the law is well settled hence, pre and post introduction of works contract services, the activity of the appellant should be covered under works contract service and cannot be vivisected for the confirmation of tax liability under various services. He also would bring to our notice that the adjudicating authority has erred in stating in the OIO that the Tribunal was in error in re-classification of the goods. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority has classified the services under other services, which were not alleged in the show-cause notice, which is not in accordance with the law as has been settled by the following decisions: - (a) Mahakosha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CST, New Delhi Vs. Air Charter Services Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (5) GSTL 107 (Tri-Del) for the same proposition. He would submit that the adjudicating authority s reasoning are quite clear and he reiterates the same. 6. In rejoinder, learned Counsel submits that this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ashish Ramesh Dasarwar Vs. CCE&Service Tax, Nagpur 2017-TIOL-3230-CESTAT-MUM in an identical set of facts has relied upon the judgment of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra) and allowed the appeal of the appellant therein holding that demands cannot be raised in various services being the contract as Works Contract Service. 7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the issue falls for consideration is whether the ....