TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of business, the show-cause notice has no basis. The adjudicating authority proceeded to pass the Order on a completely fresh ground and therefore the order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The Commissioner correctly placed reliance on various judgements such as Godrej Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai [2008 (7) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT ] and Tribunal decision in the case of Dhampur Sugarmills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut [2010 (8) TMI 365 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. On the other hand the reliance placed by Revenue in case of CCE, Jaipur Vs. Ashoka Industries [2011 (1) TMI 414 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] is out of context. In the case of Ashoka Industries the dispute was regarding production of a certificate to avail the benefit of Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncelled the old contract and entered into a new contract to take benefit of composition scheme. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority on two accounts. Firstly, he held that the Order-in-Original went beyond the grounds invoked in the show-cause notice. Secondly, he held that in terms of Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules, application for registration can be made within 30 days of commencement of business. And further the Service Tax under composition scheme in terms of Rule 3 of Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007, the option to avail the scheme should be exercised prior to payment of Service Tax which was done in the present case. Further he observed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No. 108/95 CE. In that context it was held that as the basic issue is discussed in the show-cause notice, the order cannot be caused on some minor point. But in the present case the issue in the show-cause notice and the Order are different. 5. We also note that the Commissioner recorded a clear finding that in the absence of any evidence to show that the new contract was merely an eye-wash is not supported by any documentary evidence. No proof is forthcoming from the records that the earlier contract was cancelled and fresh contract signed on 06.06.2007 merely to avail the benefit of a composition scheme which come into effect on 01.06.2007. The appellant made submission before the Commissioner that the old contract had to be te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
