##PAGE1##

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI

PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO.4

SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51031 OF 2021

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BHO-EXCUS-001-APP-031-21-22 dated 27.05.2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Goods Service Tax, Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal]

Ramesh Kumar Jain : Appellant Madhav Mill ke Baju Se, Sagar Road, In Front of Central Bank,

Damoh, M.P. -470661 Vs

Principal Commissioner, Central : Respondent Excise and CGST-Jabalpur

GST Bhawan, Mission Chowk, Napier Town, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh-482001

APPEARANCE:

Shri Abhash Mishra, Advocate for the respondent Shri Aejaz Ahmad, Authorised Representative for the Respondent

CORAM :

HON’BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER No. 50698/2026

Date of Hearing:01.04.2026 Date of Decision:01.04.2026

DR. RACHNA GUPTA

The present appeal has been filed to assail the Order-in-Appeal

No. BHO-EXCUS-001-APP-031-21-22 dated 27.05.2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Goods Service Tax, Customs

and Central Excise, Bhopal

2. The facts, in brief, which culminated into the said order are that based on some information, the department got to know that the appellant had received an amount of Rs. 2,42,29,738/- during the period 2013-14 to 2016-17 against rendering some services but the service tax liability on the said amount was discharged. The appellant

2

SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51031 OF 2021

was called upon to explain the same. However, no response was received. Accordingly, a show cause notice No. 23/2018 dated 22.10.2018 was served upon them proposing the recovery of the service tax amounting to Rs. 34,30,485/- along with interest and the appropriate rate and imposition of proportionate penalties. The said proposal was initially confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 31/2019 dated 25.06.2019. In an appeal against the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 30.09.2019 remanded back the matter. Pursuant thereto, the original adjudicating authority issued the Order-in-Original No. 10/2020 dated 28.07.2020 except to the extent of confirming the service tax amounting to Rs. 27,48,031/-. The balance demand of Rs. 682454/- and the proportionate penalty was dropped. Vide the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) has partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the late fee of Rs. 1,60,000/-, however, the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 27,48,031/- is still being confirmed. Being aggrieved, the appellant

has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Authorized Representative for the department and have

perused the entire case records.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has mentioned that the first Order-in-Original dated 25.06.2019 was an ex-parte order as the appellant could not marked their presence before the Original Adjudicating Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded matter back to the adjudicating authority. All the requisite documents were produced before the adjudicating authority at the stage of post remand hearing. However, none of the documents got reflected in the Order-in-Original dated 28.07.2020. The complete set of documents

3

SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51031 OF 2021

was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) as well but still the documents have not been considered and the demand has been confirmed. Learned counsel has impressed upon the documents as annexed with the synopsis filed today sufficiently proves that the

activity of the appellant is that of ‘Works Contract Service’ (WCS).

5. Learned counsel also impressed upon that the certificates to the said effect were issued by the service recipients who are none but the Government/Governmental Authorities. It is submitted that the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) are contrary to those documents. The order under challenge (Order-in-Appeal dated 27.05.2021) is

therefore prayed to be set-aside and ap