TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 1064
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Advocate for Appellant Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwal, Authorized Representative for Respondent ORDER ARCHANA WADHWA After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Rajesh Chibber, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwal, learned A.R. appearing on behalf of the revenue, we find that the appellant was registered with the department under the categ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y was raised by the department which was immediately replied. Nothing happened thereafter for almost 4 years when the department vide summon dated 08.05.2014 department called for certain information and later on SCN dated 29.09.2014 was issued invoking extended period demanding service tax on above services under works contract. 3. The demand was contested on merits as also on time bar. 4. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were exempt, he confirmed the demand for the period from 2009-10 to 30.06.2012. He also upheld invocation of extended period. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has strongly assailed the demand on the ground that the same stands confirmed under erection commissioning and installation whereas the proposal in the show cause notice was for confirmation of demand under works contract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... going through the impugned order we find that the demand stands confirmed under a category different than the one proposed in the show cause notice. In the absence of any proposal in the notice to confirm the demand under the category of erection commissioning and installation services, it was not open to the Revenue to go beyond the show cause notice. This was so held by the Tribunal in the case....