AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 66
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....part of the demand. 2. The brief facts are that the Appellant, M/s. Ajab Singh & Co., is a sole proprietorship concern of Mr. Ajab Singh, having his registered office at Village Gokulpur, Wazirabad Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110094. The Appellant was registered with the Service Tax Department vide registration no. AKDPS2160CSD001 dated 04.03.2010, under the taxable category of Renting of Immovable Property Services'. The appellant was a Class I Contractor with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), engaged in execution of construction works for DDA. The scope of works executed, inter alia, included the following: (i) Construction and repair of roads. (ii) Construction and covering of drains. (iii) Construction of boundary walls for protection of land. (iv) Construction of parking facilities. (v) Construction of residential complexes. (vi) Upgradation and renovation of residential houses. (vii) Supply and installation of rainwater harvesting systems. (viii) Construction of temporary roads adjacent to the outer boundary wall near railway line in Commonwealth Games Village. (ix) Development of hard land....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertaining to these very contracts were subsequently dropped by the Department vide Order dated 27.03.2018. 3.3 Learned counsel also stated that raising a fresh demand on the same contracts was wholly unwarranted and contrary to law. Once the Department had already adjudicated and dropped the demand in respect of these contracts, the same issue could not be reopened. Hence, the impugned demand was unsustainable. Further, learned counsel submitted that cum-tax benefit should be extended to the appellant. 4. Learned authorized representative submitted that construction of roads may be covered under exemption, however, the construction of International Centre and Restaurant Building including their plumbing and electrification works was not exempted. Learned authorized representative stated that it was obvious from the plain reading of description of the constructions that 'Restaurant Building' and 'International Centre' did not fall under non-commercial category. He further submitted that there was no provision in the Finance Act, 1994 for exemption from payment of service tax on such constructions. Learned authorized representative also submitted that the Adjudicating A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of these document with their written submissions dated 1712 2013. Noticee has also submitted the copies of corresponding agreements made with DDA. I have gone through these documents and find that these are composite contracts for supply of material and rendition of services. Notice is also submitted documents. Evidence payment of act on the material consumed for carrying out the jobs. As the contracts are composite one, I hold that the services provided by the notice are works contract Service as defined under sub clause(zzzza) of clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 which defines works contract as ........." 5.3 Consequently, we find that the contention of the learned counsel in this regard is correct. The adjudicating authority cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. A Service tax demand cannot be confirmed under a different taxable head than the one proposed in the Show Cause Notice. A Show Cause Notice is the foundation of the case, and departing from its classification violates the principles of natural justice, as the assessee cannot defend a charge not originally levelled. A demand must align with the specific head proposed in the Show Cause Notice. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice tax under the taxable service of "Management, Maintenance and Repair" and the rest of the three notices contain a demand under classifiable service "Information Technology Software". In the facts of the case, the demand was made on account of services provided by the assessee in respect of the supply of third-party software, software developed in house or customised software/ The assessee had temporarily transferred the right to use the said software to their clients. Thus, prior to 16th May 2008, such service was classifiable under the category of "Intellectual Property Service" and with effect from 16th May, 2008, it was classifiable under the category of "Information Technology Software". In fact, the management, maintenance and repair services of computer hardware as well as software under the annual maintenance contract was covered by the category of "Management, Maintenance or Repair" services which was defined under Section 65(64) of the Finance Act. Thus, the classification mentioned in the first show cause notice was completely erroneous. Therefore, CESTAT was right in holding that the first show cause notice was illegal. Elementary principles of natural justice req....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of King George-V as Emperor of India that took place on 12 December 1911, subsequent to his coronation at Westminster Abbey in June 1911. The decision to hold the Coronation Durbars in Delhi at the vast open ground at Coronation Park was a move to emphasise the historical significance of Delhi as the former capital of the Mughal Empire. Coronation Park also has the largest and tallest statue of King George V. The statue was moved here in the mid-1960s from a site opposite India Gate in the centre of New Delhi. It is opposite an obelisk called the Coronation Memorial, which commemorates the 1911 Durbar, when George V laid the foundation stone for the new capital city of New Delhi. 6.3 From the foregoing, it is apparent that the Coronation Park is a historical site and of importance to the history of this nation. Hence, we hold that the same is eligible for exemption under the said notification. Further, provision of parking in such parks is for public utility, and charging of nominal charges does not make it commercial. We find that the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in its decision in the case of M/s Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd vs Commissione....