2018 (12) TMI 1181 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Validity of SCN – case of appellant is that the category of services are not clear from the show cause notice or the impugned order, which has confirmed the demand – Held that:- The department has not mentioned the category / classification of the service under which the demand is made. Various allegations have been raised in the SCN. However, the classification of the service upon which the specific demand of service tax has been made is not forthcoming. Even after receiving the reply of the appellant, the adjudicating authority has not been able to confirm the demand under a particular category.
–
The department has not considered the exemption eligible for agricultural produce and has raised the demand without mentioning the category of service. It is not understood whether the demand is on storage or warehousing services or under GTA service – There is a fundamental flaw in the show cause notice as well as in the impugned order.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ong with interest and imposed equal penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also ordered for recovery of CENVAT credit of ₹ 2,23,007/-. Aggrieved, appellants are now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. consultant Shri P.C. Anand appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the appellant is engaged in storing facility for agricultural produce. In addition to this, they provide storage facility of petroleum products of IOCL etc. For such activities, they had incurred services for fumigation of the warehouse. They had also rendered goods transport agency service. However, though the department has issued a show cause notice proposing to recover the service tax, the show cause notice does not mention the category of service under which the demand is made. The services of storing and warehousing of agricultural produce are exempted vide Notification No. 12/2002- So also the services of fumigation are exempted with regard to storing of agricultura
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ry of services are not clear from the show cause notice or the impugned order, which has confirmed the demand, the appellant prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. He submitted that the appellant had no intention of evading payment of service tax by suppression of facts and therefore the demand raised invoking the extended period cannot sustain. 3. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. On going through the show cause notice, we find that the department has not mentioned the category / classification of the service under which the demand is made. Various allegations have been raised in the show cause notice. However, the classification of the service upon which the specific demand of service tax has been made is not forthcoming. Even after receiving the reply of the appellant, the adjudicating authority has not been able to confirm the demand under a particular category. The allegation in the show cause notice as w
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =