Case Law Details
T.M.P. Manoharan & Co. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that show cause notice not specifying specific service rather demanding service tax on consolidated tax liability makes the show cause notice indefensible. Accordingly, the demand raised thereon is liable to be set aside.
Facts-
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIO passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.
By the Show Cause Notice No. 22/2013 (C) dated 11.04.2013 issued to the assessee which culminated in the passing of the impugned order, it is the case of the Revenue that the assessee-appellant is a registered service provider under: (a) maintenance and repair service, (b) manpower recruitment service and (c) commercial or industrial construction service, they had also provided ‘erection, commissioning and maintenance’ services to M/s. Graphite India, Nasik and M/s. Siemens, Navi Mumbai which were found during one of the audits, from the balance-sheet copies, Income Tax statement copies and other documents obtained from the Income Tax Department, but however, the assessee-appellant refused to produce the documents required for statutory auditing. From the above, it was understood by the Revenue that the appellant had undertaken sub-contracting agreement for the provision of service under erection and commissioning services.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
