2023 (4) TMI 1017

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant Shri Rajiv Kapoor, Authorised Representative of the Respondent ORDER The sole issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the demand can be confirmed under a head that was not proposed in the show cause notice. 2. The records indicate that a show cause notice dated April 16, 2012 was issued to the appellant proposing a demand under the category 'm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... issued, it is not open to the appellant to make submissions at this stage. 5. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned authorized representative appearing for the Department have been considered. 6. It is not disputed that the demand has been confirmed under categories not proposed in the show cause notice. This issue was also examined at l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it would be pertinent to refer to the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in Ashish Ramesh Dasarwar v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Nagpur [2017-TIOL-3230-CESTAT-MUM]. The Division Bench of the Tribunal held as follows : "6. As regards the period after 1-6-2007, since the demand was raised under "commercial or industrial construction service", whereas admittedly the service ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are of the view that the confirmation of demand under the category of WCS will not be proper particularly in view of the decision of the Tribunal in case of Ashish Ramesh Dasarwar (supra) wherein Tribunal has taken the view that demand for Service Tax is to be set aside if the Show Cause Notice proposed a classification different from WCS for construction activity." 21. A Division Bench o....