TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning and installation services, it was not open to the Revenue to go beyond the show cause notice - This was so held by the Tribunal in the case of GAMBHIR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -LUCKNOW [ 2017 (6) TMI 1107 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD ], which stands followed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, LUCKNOW VERSUS M/S SONU CONSTRUCTION (VICE-VERSA) [ 2018 (9) TMI 1364 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD ] - As such, there are no reasons to uphold the impugned demand. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- As per facts on record, after the audit objection, a lot of correspondence was exchanged between the Appellant and the Revenue in the month of December, 2010. In such a scenario raising of demand in September, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e records for the period 2009-2010, audit took a view that said activities were liable to tax under works contract services. Correspondence was exchanged between the appellant and department in December, 2010 when query was raised by the department which was immediately replied. Nothing happened thereafter for almost 4 years when the department vide summon dated 08.05.2014 department called for certain information and later on SCN dated 29.09.2014 was issued invoking extended period demanding service tax on above services under works contract. 3. The demand was contested on merits as also on time bar. 4. The Commissioner bifurcated the period of demand in two parts i.e. prior and post 01.07.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute arose on the basis of audit objection conducted in the year 2010 and all the queries raised by the Revenue were duly answered by the appellant. As such issuance of the show cause notice after the normal period of limitation is not justified. For the above proposition, he places reliance on the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad decision in the case of C.C.E ST Vs. Triveni Engineering Industries Limited, 2015 (317) ELT 408(Alld). 6. After hearing the learned A.R. and going through the impugned order we find that the demand stands confirmed under a category different than the one proposed in the show cause notice. In the absence of any proposal in the notice to confirm the demand under the category of erection commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
