2024 (1) TMI 828

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jera , Advocate for the Appellant Shri Himanshu P Shrimali , Superintendent ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The present appeal is preferred against Order-In-Appeal No. BHV-EXCUS-000-APP-264-2023 dated 27.07.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of GST and Central Excise, Rajkot by which service tax demand of Rs. 4,40,838 under section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... this behalf was placed on the following decisions: Supermax Personal Care P. Ltd Vs. Union of India - 2021 (377) E.L.T 399 B. L. Mehta Construction Co. P. Ltd Vs. CST- 2018 (8) G.S.T.L 92 Transocean Offshore Vs. Union of India - 2017 (356) E.L.T 45 (AP). 2.1 It was further submitted that show cause notice is barred by limitation provided under proviso to section 73 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sions of Finance Act are absent. He relied upon Employee ID Card, Health Insurance Card, Awards etc in his behalf. 3. Shri H P Shrimali learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of Revenue, argued that income was booked in Form 26AS under section 194J of the Income Tax Act which denotes fees for professional or technical services and that department came to know about the such services pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....department. In that circumstance, the jurisdiction falls where the appellant has executed the work. Admittedly, in this case, the work has been executed at Chandigarh, therefore, the cause of action arose at Chandigarh and the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II has no jurisdiction for the work executed at Chandigarh. In that circumstance, the adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction t....