9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jha for the Respondent ORDER D.N. Panda, Judicial Member. - Appellant has challenged the Order dated 25-3-2004 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal I), Kolkata holding that the Adjudicating authority was correct in holding that the appellant was liable to pay service tax on the charges received by them for the services rendered as 'Consulting Engineers'. While holding so, tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng services were paid separately for which the appellant should be brought to the ambit of tax as "Consulting Engineer' and confirmed the demand. This he did ignoring nature of works contract executed by appellant, scope of work, composite character of the contract and lump sum value thereof. The contract was not possible to be vivisected and taxed separately for each item of work of the entire pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the authorities below. 4.1 Heard both sides. In view of various pleas raised as to impost itself, including time-bar, we were compelled to refer to the show-cause notice to find out the very basis of taxation. Curiously, we noticed that the SCN C. No. V(15)88/S Tax/Cal.I/2001/2814 D, dated 4th December, 2001, did not spell out the basis of levy of Service Tax of Rs. 16,74,275. It is the ele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xable service". These materials aspects are clearly to be put to notice of the appellant. Otherwise, the appellant is said to have been denied due process of justice. 4.3 On the light of our observations aforesaid, arbitrary order of Authority below is unsustainable and the impugned order is therefore set aside directing the ld. Adjudicating Authority to grant a fair opportunity of hearing to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
