TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is eligible for abatement of 67% of the value of the goods is in itself the acceptance of the fact that the contracts were executed with material. It is also on record that the Revenue has not contested these findings of the adjudicating authority before the Tribunal. Demand raised in some of the SCN in other classification, which was not proposed in the SCN - Held that: - the law is fairly settled by the judicial pronouncement on this point i.e. the adjudicating authority cannot classify services if it is not proposed in the SCN. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/87466/13 - A/91785/2017 - Dated:- 27-12-2017 - Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome cases confirmed the demand under CICS whereas the show-cause notice has alleged that the classification would fall under MMRS and in some cases, he has upheld the allegation in the show-cause notice. It is noticed that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand raised along with interest and did not impose any penalty. The demands were confirmed against only 52 contracts covering 3 show-cause notices. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant draw our attention to the facts of the case and took us through the entire case records. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority in the impugned order at para 5 in the Discussions and Findings portion clearly recorded that the appellant would eligible for abatement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28) ELT 298 (Tri) affirmed by the Apex Court in 2007 (209) ELT 11 (SC). (g) Bright Brothers 1991 (52) ELT 385 (Tri) affirmed by Apex Court in 2000 (116) ELT A67 (SC). (h) Toyo Engineering India Ltd. 2006 (201) ELT 513 (SC) (i) Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC) (j) Warner Hindustan Ltd. 1999 (113) ELT 24 (SC). 5. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) on the other hand would draw our attention to the various findings recorded by the adjudicating authority in the OIO. It is his submission that the change in classification by the adjudicating authority is correct and submits that it is not shown in any of the case as has been sought to be projected by the appellant. It is his submission that only in few ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been executed by the appellants are with material. Learned Counsel was correct in brining to our notice that the said findings of the adjudicating authority that the appellant is eligible for abatement of 67% of the value of the goods is in itself the acceptance of the fact that the contracts were executed with material. It is also on record that the Revenue has not contested these findings of the adjudicating authority before the Tribunal. If that be so, even when the Revenue authorities are accepting the facts that the contracts executed by the appellant are nothing but works contracts, for the period in question, entire case of the Revenue in the show-cause notice stands demolished by the Apex Court in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd. (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
