TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the contract number mentioned in show-cause notice, by the respondent in their written submission dated October 7, 2009. Therefore, we find that the learned Commissioner has traversed beyond the scope of show-cause notice and this work requires to be examined. Therefore, after setting aside the learned Commissioner's order we remand the matter to learned Commissioner to decide the case afresh - Decided in favour of revenue. - Service Tax Appeal No. 105 of 2009 - A-780/Kol/2012 - Dated:- 31-10-2012 - MISRA D M. (DR) JUDICIAL MEMBER AND GAULE S.K. TECHNICAL MEMBER For the Appellant : S. Misra, Additional Commissioner (Authorised Representative), For the Respondent : None appeared S.K. GAULE (Technical Member).- Hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . They did not take registration from August 16, 2002 and they had taken registration only on March 28, 2005. They also did not file any statutory return as per the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. They were also providing rent-a-cab service which became taxable with effect from April 1, 2000 and for that also they did not pay the service tax. Accordingly proceedings were initiated against them and show cause-cum-demand notice was issued for payment of service tax of ₹ 1,12,18,742 and there was proposal for penalty under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The learned Commissioner confirmed the service tax of ₹ 7,20,132 in case of rent-a-cab service only out of total demand of ₹ 1,12,18,742 and imposed a penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Jamadas Singh v. Collector of Customs [1992] 61 ELT 639 (Tri.Cal). (iii) Shri Ulaganayagi Ammal Steels v. Commissioner of C. Ex. [2008] 231 ELT 434 (Tri.-Chennai). (iv) Commissioner v. P.P. Ali Mohammed [2004] 177 ELT 436 (Tri.Bang.). The contention of the Revenue is that from work orders issued by M/s. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd., it was revealed that transportation of coal loading and unloading was actually cargo handling service and the Commissioner has erred in not considering the above aspect. Initially the hearing was fixed for January 9, 2012. Thereafter hearings were fixed for February 20, 2012, none appeared for the respondent on that date and the case was adjourned to April 12, 2012 and thereafter to June 19, 2012. None ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period. Hence the demand is time-barred. They placed reliance on Tribunal's decision in the case of Hassan Hazee Co. v. CCE reported in [2007] 5 STR 397 (Tri.Bang) wherein it was held that the assessee having furnished all informations under statutory provisions demand based on returns and audit check-extended period cannot be invoked. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned Authorised Representative and perused the records. The Department's case is that the learned Commissioner has traversed beyond the scope of show-cause notice. On perusal of para 20 of show-cause notice, we find that the following work orders were relied upon for issuance of the show-cause notice: 1. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. Order No. 2006/50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
