M.S. Karnik, J.

Admit.

2. Filing of the paper-book is dispensed with. By consent of the parties, the Appeal is taken up for hearing forthwith.

3. This Appeal is filed by the appellant - Commissioner of CGST, ST & Central Excise, Raigad Commissionerate challenging the order dated 05/04/2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai ('CESTAT' for short) under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent-Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.- a public limited company is an Assesseee under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. The CESTAT by the impugned order allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent - Assesseee.

The facts of the case in brief are as under :

4. The Assessee is registered with the Central Excise Department for manufacture of products falling under chapter 28, 29, 31 of the First Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Assessee has opted to function as 'Large Taxpayer's Unit' in July, 2008. The Assessee also holds service tax registration. By an agreement dated 12/06/2009 between the Assessee and the Central Railways, the respondent - Assessee has given 416 wagons to Railways on lease/rent for 20 years. By letters dated 29/09/2011 and 07/12/2011, the Assessee informed the Railways that they had received an amount of Rs. 13,04,29,833/- from Railways during the financial year 2008-09 to 2011-12 (upto December 2011). According to the appellant, the said activity of the leasing of wagons is liable to service tax under the category of "supply of tangible goods services under section 65(105) (zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. These facts were concealed by the Assessee and found by the auditors of the Central Excise, Raigad Commissionerate. A show cause notice came to be issued on 02/04/2012 for recovery of service tax of Rs. 1,53,50,737/- and for interest and penalty. The respondent - Assessee filed reply on 19/06/2012 contesting the show cause notice. The respondents were heard on 13/01/2015.

5. The Commissioner (Central Excise and Service Tax) passed Order-in-Original dated 16/03/2015 confirming the demand of service tax, interest and also imposed penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent - Assessee filed an Appeal before CESTAT. By the impugned order dated 05/04/2017, CESTAT allowed the Appeal. Being aggrieved by this impugned order, the present Appeal is filed on the following substantial question of law under 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and under the Finance Act, 1994.

"Whether the Ld.Tribunal erred in holding that there is no foundation in the show cause notice brining out whether any service element was involved while renting the wagons by the Assessee to railways?"

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant impugning the order passed by the CESTAT contended that CESTAT allowed the respondent's Appeal in a perfunctory manner. Inviting our attention to the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner while adjudicating show cause notice demanding service tax, learned Counsel would submit that the Commissioner had after considering the contentions raised by the respondent, recorded detailed findings and by a reasoned order adjudicated the show cause notice. Learned Counsel would submit that while reversing the well reasoned order of the Commissioner, there is absolutely no discussion in the impugned order as to why the Appeal deserves to be allowed. Learned Counsel would submit that the CESTAT, while hearing the Appeal filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, section 129(B) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Finance Act, 1994, is a fact finding authority and expected to pass a reasoned order in support of its conclusions. Learned Counsel would submit that the CESTAT has recorded an abrupt finding without discussing the issue raised before it and without recording any reasons for its conclusion. Learned Counsel next contended that CESTAT while hearing the Appeal was requ