TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 814
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 35L(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, open by the following order:- "The Court: Mr. Das, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the service rendered by his client was essentially watch and ward service to the metro railways and it was classifiable as such. But the respondent had erroneously classified it as security service. Learned counsel submits that for the service rendered, no service tax was leviable. Mr. Maiti for the revenue submits that this is a classification dispute to be determined by the Supreme Court. Whether at all it is a classification dispute or not is disputed. The question has to be gone into by this Court. Only after the point of maintainability is decided can the merits be gone into by this Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... revenue on the ground of limitation, the appeal does not involve a question having a relation to the rate of duty? 3. If the aforesaid questions are answered in the affirmative, whether this Court has the jurisdiction to hear the instant appeal?" In short, the appellant has raised two grounds in support of this appeal. The first one is that the impugned order of the tribunal dated 29th June, 2018 was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. Secondly, the longer period of limitation was erroneously invoked to fix the service tax liability on the appellant in relation to service rendered between September, 2001 and May 2005 in respect of which the show cause notice was issued on 27th March, 2007. The limitation for issuing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned advocate appearing for the appellant argued the case in a different light. He said that in this appeal, he was not asking the court to go into any question with regard to the rate of duty or classification of goods. The only grounds were the breach of the principles of natural justice and the error on the part of the tribunal to consider the question of limitation. He argued that the tribunal had advanced no reason in support of its order and failure to provide reasons also amounts to breach of the principles of natural justice. He relied on the following cases to support his submission : i. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department - Versus - Shukla And Brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785. ii. Annapurna Plastic Products Pvt. Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the impugned order become vulnerable for breach of the principles of natural justice and are liable to be set aside. On going through the impugned order of the tribunal, we find that no proper reasons have been given in support of its finding. It has also not taken into account, the certificate dated 4th December, 2018 of the Metro Railway certifying the nature of service rendered by the appellant. Secondly, we do not find that the question of limitation has been gone into by the tribunal in its proper perspective. The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. The appellant has pleaded that the respondents had knowledge of the transactions relying on their earlier show cause notice dated 17th September, 2004 on the sel....