2018 (6) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....with Shri Shankar Patil, Advocate, for appellant Shri M. Suresh, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The appellant filed the present ROM application. 2. Shri Bharat Raichandani, learned counsel along with Shri Shankar Patil, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the show cause notice was issued proposing classification of se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....use notice. He further submits that the appellant has raised issue of limitation in their appeal as well as at the time of argument. However, the same was recorded by this Tribunal and in the finding at para 4, it was stated that in ST-3 return the appellant had not declared the transaction of works contract service for the period May 2007 to March 2011. He submits that in the appeal at page 86, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....allation and commissioning service, the same will not go out of the service of works contract. He submits that the appellant also made the submission before this Tribunal that the service is correctly classifiable under works contract service, therefore, the installation of street light should be excluded from the works contract service being a service related to road construction. Therefore, now ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the basis of the submissions made by the appellant and the finding cannot be found fault with and the same cannot be said to be an apparent mistake in the order. We also find that the issue of classification being a question of law, can be entertained by this Tribunal. Therefore, our order on the issue of classification being under works contract service does not bear any error therein. Theref....