2023 (11) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....riod of dispute is from April 2008 to March 2009. 2.1 Brief facts, which are relevant for our consideration, are that the appellant is a holder of Service Tax Registration for provision of certain services like 'Maintenance of Golden Jubilee Park' to M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli (hereinafter referred to as 'NLC'). It appears that during the disputed period, the appellant was awarded several contracts under different agreement numbers, for providing various services to different units of M/s. NLC. Based on statements furnished by M/s. NLC relating to the value of various services provided by the assessee and payments made to them, the Revenue entertained the view that the assessee had mainly provided services falling under th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gs. 3. During adjudication, however, the original authority vide Order-in-Original No. 13/2013-ST dated 08.07.2013, has confirmed the demands, as proposed in the Show Cause Notice. In the adjudication order, while recording that the appellant had furnished acknowledged copy of S.T.-3 return for the II-half of 2008-09 filed on 12.01.2010 indicating payment of Service Tax of Rs.39,451/-, the adjudicating authority has observed that the appellant had neither submitted the documents called for in the intimation letters nor furnished the copy of S.T.-3 return filed for the I-half of 2008-09 and thus, has proceeded to confirm the demand and appropriate the amount paid for the II-half of 2008-09. 4. Against the above Order-in-Original, the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rusal of the statements given by M/s. NLC the services rendered by the assessee fall mainly under management, maintenance or repair services, nowhere is there any allegation / charge as to the exact nature of the service provided by them attracted Service Tax under a specific category. * In this regard reliance is placed on the following: - i. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore v. Brindavan Beverages [2007 (213) E.L.T. 487 (S.C.)] ii. United Telecom Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Hyderabad [(2011) 30 STT 305 (Bang. - CESTAT)] * Apart from the above, the Show Cause Notice contains certain factual mistakes, i.e., "Amount received from NLC" mentioned in the annexure to the Show Cause Notice are not correctly s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the show cause notice are not specific and are on the contrary vague, lack details and/or unintelligible that is sufficient to hold that the noticee was not given proper opportunity to meet the allegations indicated in the show cause notice. In the instant case, what the appellant has tried to highlight is the alleged connection between the various concerns. That is not sufficient to proceed against the respondents unless it is shown that they were parties to the arrangements, if any. As no sufficient material much less any material has been placed on record to substantiate the stand of the appellant, the conclusions of the Commissioner as affirmed by the CEGAT cannot be faulted." The demand in the impugned order, therefore, cannot susta....