2024 (8) TMI 1334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Respondent. 2. Learned DR for the Department submits that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs vide Notification No.02/2017-Central Tax dated 19.06.2017 specified that the appellant falls under the jurisdiction of CGST, Chandigarh Commissionerate. 3. Considering the fact, Registry is directed to change the name and address of Respondent from the Commissioner, Chandigarh-I Central Revenue Building Sector-17C, to " Commissioner of CGST, Central Revenue Building, Sector- 17C, Chandigarh. 4. In view of the above, the miscellaneous application filed by the respondent. 5. The appeals have been taken today itself for final disposal. 6. These two appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 18.05.2012 and 30.04.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter following the due process, the Ld. Commissioner partially confirmed the demand on the appellant on the services provided to HPCL under head site formation and clearance, excavation and earthmoving and demolition' under Section 65(97a) of the Act. 10. Aggrieved by the Impugned order, appellant has filed these two appeals to the extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant. 11. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 12. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law and as the same have been passing without properly appreciating the facts and the law. She further submits that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside for the reason that they have....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ow cause notices, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. She further submits that the services provided by the appellant are 'works contract services' involving both supply of goods as well as service. She further submitted that in the present case, the appellant is rendering the services of earth filling, excavation, transpiration etc. along with the supply of best quality earth from borrow pits outside the HPCL premises. Thus, the present transaction with HPCL involves both supply of goods as well as services and classifiable under 'works contract services'. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following cases: • Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and others 2015 (8) TMI 749-Supreme C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....terest and penalty does not arise. 14. On the other hand, Ld. DR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 14.1  After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposes to classify the demand under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' under Section 65(105)(zzq) of the Act, whereas in the impugned order the demand has been confirmed by changing the classification under the head 'Site Formation and clearance, excavation and Earthmoving and Demolition' which cannot be done in view of the various decisions cited (Supra) and hence the impugned order is bad in law. Secondly, it is undisputed that the services ren....