9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 909X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri J. Shankar Raman, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri R. Rajaraman, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Ms. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S. Brief facts are that based on the statements furnished by persons of M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation, it revealed that the appellant Mr. N. Arunachalam had rendered services in the nature of AMC of North Dump Yard, Maintenance of Afforestation and watching ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) though set aside the penalty imposed under Section 77 of Finance Act, 1944, upheld the confirmation of service tax as well as interest and penalty under Section 76. Hence this appeal. 2.1 The Ld. Counsel Shri J. Shankar Raman appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that Show Cause Notice does not mention the category of service under which the demand has been proposed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the demand cannot sustain when the proper category of service has not been stated in the Show Cause Notice. The Ld. Counsel relied upon Final Order No. 40392/2024 dated 28.03.2024 in the case of NPS Construction Vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise. It is prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative Shri R. Rajaraman appeared and argued for the Department. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory of service alleged to be rendered by the appellant. Merely because, the appellant received some amounts from M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation, it cannot be said that they have rendered service. In the Show Cause Notice, it is stated that the appellant rendered the activity of AMC of North Dump Yard, Afforestation and watching and up keeping of community halls. It is not clear what is the categ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
