9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the Commissioner confirming the demand of service tax, has been assailed in this appeal. 2. The Tribunal had by the aforesaid order dated 28.9.2016 remanded the matter to the Commissioner to examine whether the work orders that were issued to the appellant related to works contract service or in the nature of service relatable to transmission or distribution of electricity. The Commissioner, after remand, has given a finding that all the work orders issued to the appellant relate to works contract service. 3. The contention that has been advanced by Shri A.K. Batra, learned consultant for the appellant is that the two show cause notices that culminated in the impugned order were issued proposing demand of service tax under erectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustained under a different category. The relevant portions of the decision of the Tribunal are reproduced below: "14. The position that comes out very clearly, therefore, is that even prior to 01 June, 2007 and post 01 June 2007, the nature of service rendered by the Appellant was WCS and not CCS. The show cause notice alleged that the Appellant was providing CCS service and the demand has also been confirmed under this category by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside for this reason alone since the demand made under a particular category of service found to be incorrect in a subsequent proceeding, cannot be sustained. This is what was observed by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Polymers Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur of the Revenue a case which the Revenue had never canvassed and which the appellants had never been required to meet. It is upon this ground alone that the appeal must succeed. 16. The decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in Ashish Ramesh Dasarwar vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Nagpur, reported in 2017-TIOL-3230-CESTAT-MUM, also needs to be referred. The Division Bench of the Tribunal held as follows: 6. As regard the period after 01 June 2007, since the demand was raised under "commercial or industrial construction service, whereas admittedly the service is correctly classifiable under works contract service, the demand raised under wrong head of service cannot sustain. 7. As per above discussion, the demand raised un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
