2019 (1) TMI 1167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent : Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 12.8.2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Mumbai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is registered with Service Tax Department for providing taxable service under the category of "Port Services", defined .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... adjudicating authority had dropped the show cause proceedings, holding that the services provided by the respondent pursuant to the agreement with ONGC was not conforming to the definition of Port Services. Revenue has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the services provided by the respondent to ONGC pursuant to the agreement, should appropriately be classifiable under the taxable cat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... specific show cause notice was issued to the respondent, alleging classification under such service, the Revenue is not permitted to take such new stand for deciding the appeal in its favour. In other words, since the respondent was not specifically put to notice regarding change of classification of the service, the present classification sought for by the Department at this juncture under entir .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X