Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)
Synergic Envision Pvt Ltd vs Cst Ch - Ii on 4 May, 2026 cites

Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. And Ors on 15 June, 2007

13. We find that both the Show Cause Notices in the respective appeals are vague and lacks details of the statutory provisions invoked to bring the activities of the appellant within the alleged taxable services rendered. Apart from contending that the appellant is rendering "commercial coaching and training services", the SCN neither provides the statutory definition amongst the various definitions given under Section 65 indicating what exactly is commercial training or coaching, or what is a 'commercial training or coaching centre' as defined thereunder. The show cause notices also do not indicate the exact taxable service, amongst the numerous taxable services indicated under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 that would warrant classifying the appellant's activity under the alleged taxable service and in fact the first Show Cause Notice does not even invoke the charging provision to foist the levy of service tax on the appellant. Surprisingly, the Adjudicating Authority in the OIO or the Appellate Authority in the impugned OIA also has chosen to confirm and uphold the demands respectively, without noticing the fact that the SCN itself is bereft of the statutory basis that is necessary to uphold a valid tax demand. Unless, it is demonstrably shown referring to the specific provisions that the appellant has performed activities that fall under the particular statutory definition of the service and attracts the levy of tax for the reason that it answers to a specific taxable service, an assessment of the liability itself, which has thus been essentially hampered, ought could not have been made in the first place. It is settled position in law that SCN is the basis for the recovery of any demand or imposition of penalties and an SCN that does not put the appellant to notice of the statutory provisions that are attracted to bring the appellant within the ambit of the proposed taxable service and indicate the basis for making a tenable demand of tax, vitiates the proceedings on this ground alone. The Honourable Apex Court in the decision in CCE, Bangalore v Brindavan 8 Beverages (P) Ltd, 2007 (213) ELT 487 (SC), has held that 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 77 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd on 9 January, 2012

The decisions in CCE Nagpur v Ballarpur Industries Ltd, 2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC), Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner, 2021-TIOL-2259-HC-AHM-GST, are also in similar vein. Therefore, absent these elementary requirements in the notices, which effectively renders the SCN fundamentally and incurably defective, and absent any such legally tenable findings, we are of the considered view that the consequential proceedings and demand of service tax made on the appellant, which have been challenged in these appeals, are liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 30 - Full Document
1