TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to examine the taxability of their activity as business auxiliary service under Section 65 (105) (zzb) readwith Section 65 (19) and in doing so, he has traveled beyond the scope of show cause notice which is not permissible - Following decision of CCE, Nagpur vs. Ballaspur Industries Ltd. reported in [2007 (8) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and CCE, Bangalore vs. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. reported in [2007 (6) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Service Tax Appeal No.698 of 2012 - Final Order No. 52292/2014 - Dated:- 9-5-2014 - G Raghuram And Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Anand Mishra (Proxy Counsel), Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was being paid to IRCTC as licence fee and the balance was being retained by them in respect of supply of bed rolls to passengers. In respect of AC coaches, the appellant were receiving a specified amount per bed roll from IRCTC. The Department was of the view that the appellant are providing the support services of business or commerce taxable under Section 65 (zzzq) readwith Section 65 (104c) of the Finance Act, 1994 and accordingly they would be liable to pay service tax on the amount being received by them from IRCTC. It is on this basis that a show cause notice dated 01/05/09 was issued to the appellant for demand of service tax amounting to ₹ 12,67,522/- from them in respect of business support service alleged to have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided by the appellant are not support service of business or commerce and has given a finding that the appellants activity is classifiable as business auxiliary service under Section 65 (105) (zzb) readwith Section 65 (19) ibid and has confirmed the demand on this basis, that the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the allegation made in the show cause notice, which is not permissible, as the appellant had never been put on notice about taxability of their services under Section 65 (105) (zzb) readwith Section 65 (19) as business auxiliary service and from the very beginning their stand was that their activity is not covered by the definition of support service of business or commerce and, in fact, is not covered by any other clause of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
