9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsultant for the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Both these appeals, since involving the same issues, they are taken up for common disposal. 1. The facts of the case are that proceedings were initiated against the appellants herein, proposing to demand service tax in respect of consideration received by them for transportation of employees of their client ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant, Ld. Consultant Shri V. Vijay Anand, makes oral and written submissions, which can be broadly summarized as under: (i) The adjudicating authority has proceeded beyond the scope of Show Cause Notice. The Notice was issued under "Tour Operator Service". However, the impugned orders have confirmed the demand under Rent-a-Cab services. Ld. Consultant relies upon the following case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts which are in the nature of penalty. That penalty cannot be treated as amount received for providing services. Hence, the entire demand in respect of collection of ticket cancellation charges cannot also sustain. 3. Without prejudice to the above submissions, the Ld. Consultant submits that the entire dispute has arisen on account of interpretation of provisions of statute and/or an exemption n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agna Laboratories Gujarat (P) Ltd. - 2016 (339) E.L.T. A56 (SC) has affirmed the decision of the Tribunal that adjudication order cannot go beyond the proposals made in the Show Cause Notice. On this very ground, we hold that the demand made in respect of tour operator services, provided to SEZ but confirmed by the adjudicating authority under Rent-a-Cab services, will not sustain and is, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
