2018 (4) TMI 619

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unt of Rs. 61 lakhs demanded in the show cause notice, the Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand of about Rs. 34 lakhs on various grounds and confirmed the balance demand to the extent of Rs. 26 lakhs. The assessee is challenging the confirmation of Service Tax demand of around Rs. 26 lakhs whereas the Revenue is in appeal against a portion of the demand dropped by the Adjudicating Authority. Part of the Revenue appeal also is against the ground on which the amount of Rs. 26 lakhs has been confirmed. 2. With the above background, we heard Shri O.P. Agarwal, ld. C.A. appearing for the assessee and Sh. Amresh Jain, ld. AR for the Revenue. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the grounds of appeal. He submitted that out of the amo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ld. Consultant submitted that in respect of Sl. No. a, b, c, & e of the table above, the classification of the activity was proposed under CICS in the show cause notice whereas the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed such demand under Works Contract Service (WCS). He argued that such confirmation is travelling beyond the show cause notice and hence not sustainable. In this regard, he relied on the Tribunal decision in the case of Ashish Ramesh Dasarwar vs. CCE&ST, Nagpur- 2017-TIOL-3230-CESTAT- MUM (para 6). He further referred to point „f‟ of the table above and submitted that the assessee is challenging the confirmation of demand of Rs. 16,421/- under the category of GTA as the same is beyond the show cause notice. In the sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rmed the balance amount. The assessee has challenged a part of the Service tax confirmed against him. They are not disputing the liability to the extent of Rs. 9,11,262/- in respect of the work carried out to RVUN towards rerouting of existing raw water pipelines. In respect of rest of the confirmation of Service tax demand in the impugned order, the main ground for challenge is that the show cause noticed as proposed demand of Service tax under the category of CICS whereas the Adjudicating Authority has upheld such demands under the category of WCS after analysing various activities in detail. It is fairly well settled position of law that the Adjudicating Authority cannot travel beyond the allegation made in the show cause notice. 7. We ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d classification of the same under Cargo Handling Services. It has been held that the trucks which were used for transportation of the goods were belonging to service recipient. The Revenue in their appeal has challenged this finding with the argument that in the absence of any record evidencing the ownership of the trucks, the service ought to have been classified under Cargo Handling service. The assessee has also challenged the similar finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority in para 24 of the impugned order. In this para the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed part of the demand under Cargo Handling service amounting to Rs. 32,843/- and certain part under GTA amounting Rs. 16,421/-. After perusal of the record, we note that not....