TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(TECHNICAL) Ms Rinki Arora, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Anupam Kumar Tiwari, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER: ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR After hearing both the sides duly represented by Ms Rinki Arora learned Advocate appearing for appellant and Shri Anupam Kumar Tiwari learned Authorised Representative appearing for Revenue, we note that the appellants were regis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f M/s Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi reported as 2016 (45) STR 549 (Tri.-Del.) if the classification of service is adjudged to be under a different heading than the one proposed in the show cause notice then such order is not sustainable. 3. Heard the learned Authorised Representative appearing for revenue who has supported the impugned order. 4. Having....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduce para no.5 to 6 of the said order bellow:- "5.As regards the demand of Rs. 1.59 lakhs approx., and Rs. 1.13 lakhs approx., confirmed under the category of "information technology software" services, the contention of the learned Advocate is that demand was initially raised under the "Business Auxiliary Support Services" but stand confirmed by the adjudicating authority under the "Inf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. As per declaration of law in the above decisions, allegations are required to be made by the Revenue very clearly in the show cause notice and adoption of classification of service under the heading different than the one proposed in the show cause notice amounts to passing the order beyond the scope of show cause notice which is not permissible and the impugned order is required to be quashed....