TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to note the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE VERSUS BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES (P) LTD. [ 2007 (6) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein it has been categorically held The show cause notice is the foundation on which the department has to build up its case. If the allegations in the show cause notice are not specific and are on the contrary vague, lack details and/or unintelligible that is sufficient to hold that the noticee was not given proper opportunity to meet the allegations indicated in the show cause notice. In the instant case, what the appellant has tried to highlight is the alleged connection between the various concerns. Thus, no case is made out to take a different view deviating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e categories of management, maintenance or repair service, manpower supply agency service and commercial or industrial construction service which were taxable services with effect from 01.07.2003, 16.06.2005 and 10.09.2004 as per Section 65(105)(zzzg), Section 65(105)(k) and Section 65(105)(zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994 respectively and that the assessee had failed to pay the Service Tax by the due date, had contravened Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, had failed to assess the Service Tax due correctly on the taxable services provided by them, had failed to file half-yearly returns and had also contravened Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 inasmuch as they had failed to issue invoice, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, but however, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 94/2014 (P)(ST) dated 06.05.2014 rejected their appeal and upheld the order passed by the original authority. 5. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before this forum. 6. Heard Shri J. Shankarraman, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri N. Satyanarayanan, Ld. Assistant Commissioner defending the impugned order. 7. The grounds urged by the appellant could be summarized as under: - The Show Cause Notice does not allege the category under which the appellant is exigible to Service Tax. Only a person providing any ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise, Cuddalore. The taxable value of Rs.6,66,799/- is not the correct amount, which was the taxable value of service received during the year 2008-09 and also 2009-10. The assessee had received Rs.3,43,443/- as contract bill amount during the year 2008-09 for the contract agreement No. 092/RB/08-09. 8. Per contra, the Ld. Assistant Commissioner, supported the findings in the impugned order. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and we have gone through the documents/orders referred to during the course of arguments, and we find that the only issue to be decided by us is: whether the demand confirmed in the impugned order is sustainable in law? 10. A perusal of the Show Cause Notice makes it clear, and admittedly, that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court. 11.2 Moreover, an identical issue has already been decided by this Bench of the CESTAT in the case of M/s. T.M.P. Manoharan Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry [Final Order No. 40962 of 2023 dated 30.10.2023 in Service Tax Appeal No. 41840 of 2014 CESTAT, Chennai]. 12. We do not find any case made out for us to take a different view deviating from the view expressed in the case of M/s. T.M.P. Manoharan Co. (supra) and therefore, we are of the view that the demand in the impugned order cannot sustain, for which reason the same is set aside. 13. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. ( Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2023 ) - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
