TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice proposed classification under CICS whereas the Adjudicating Authority upheld the demand of Service tax under WCS. Even the demand confirmed under WCS by the Adjudicating Authority are liable to be set aside for the reason that the Adjudicating Authority has traveled beyond the show cause notice. Demand raised on amount received towards transportation and unloading of cement bags from Railway wagon - the Adjudicating Authority has classified the services under Transport of Goods by Road Service whereas the show cause notice had proposed classification of the same under Cargo Handling Services - Held that: - nothing is forthcoming in the record justifying the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority to the effect that the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i O.P. Agarwal, ld. C.A. appearing for the assessee and Sh. Amresh Jain, ld. AR for the Revenue. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the grounds of appeal. He submitted that out of the amount of ₹ 26 lakhs confirmed in the impugned order, the assessee is not challenging the amount of ₹ 9,11,262/- which was confirmed under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS). The demand is confirmed as follows: Sl. No. Nature of service Classification as per SCN Period Amount of service tax a Construction of booster pumping station and raw water res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent bags from railway wagon to department store. Cargo Handling GTA 2008-09 2008-09 32,843/- 16,421/- Total 26,02,734/- Ld. Consultant submitted that in respect of Sl. No. a, b, c, e of the table above, the classification of the activity was proposed under CICS in the show cause notice whereas the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed such demand under Works Contract Service (WCS). He argued that such confirmation is travelling beyond the show cause notice and hence not sustainable. In this regard, he relied on the Tribunal decision in the case of Ashish Ramesh Dasarwar vs. CCE ST, Nagp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... garding various construction activities carried out by the assessee during the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. Out of the total Service Tax demanded in the show cause notice amounting to ₹ 61,01,025/-, the Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand to the extent of about ₹ 34 lakhs and confirmed the balance amount. The assessee has challenged a part of the Service tax confirmed against him. They are not disputing the liability to the extent of ₹ 9,11,262/- in respect of the work carried out to RVUN towards rerouting of existing raw water pipelines. In respect of rest of the confirmation of Service tax demand in the impugned order, the main ground for challenge is that the show cause noticed as proposed demand of Service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the dispute is regarding the demand raised on amount received towards transportation and unloading of cement bags from Railway wagon. In para 26 and 27(i) of the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has classified the services under Transport of Goods by Road Service whereas the show cause notice had proposed classification of the same under Cargo Handling Services. It has been held that the trucks which were used for transportation of the goods were belonging to service recipient. The Revenue in their appeal has challenged this finding with the argument that in the absence of any record evidencing the ownership of the trucks, the service ought to have been classified under Cargo Handling service. The assessee has also challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
