TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereas the same was confirmed under various services other than Industrial Construction Services. In the case of M/s Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd., it was held that as per declaration of law in various cases stated therein allegations are required to be made by revenue very clear in the show cause notice and adoption of classification of service under the heading different than the one proposed in the show cause notice amounts to passing the order beyond the scope of show cause notice - Tribunal in the above stated case made it clear that if the confirmation of service tax is under a different category than the one which was proposed in the show cause notice then such confirmation of demand is not sustainable. Demand do not sustain - appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supply Company Ltd. Further, some of the activities were in respect of services provided to Indian Railways. The Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand holding that provided services were Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service , Maintenance and Repair Service and Manpower Supply Agency Service . Aggrieved by the said order appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the proposal in the show cause notice was for confirmation of demand under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service whereas the demand was confirmed under Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service , Maintenance and Repair Service and Manpower Supply Agency Service . Further, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the contention of the learned Advocate is that demand was initially raised under the Business Auxiliary Support Services but stand confirmed by the adjudicating authority under the Information Technology Software Services . As such, it is the contention of the learned Advocate that the impugned order stand passed by the adjudicating authority by travelling beyond the show cause notice. For the above proposition, he relies upon the following decisions : 1. Hindustan Polymers Co. Ltd. v. Collector [1999 (106) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.)]; 2. Bhor Industries v. Union of India [2011 (266) E.L.T. 444 (Bom.)]; and 3. Deepak Co. v. CCE, New Delhi [2015 (38) S.T.R. 1010 (Tri.-Del.)]. 6.Admittedly, the show cause notice proposed de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
