##PAGE1##

1

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI

PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO. II

SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51615 OF 2025

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.RPR-EXCUS-000-APP-251-24-25 dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), CGST & Central Excise,

Raipur(C.G.)]

M/s Babu Lal Jaiswal ….APPELLANT Sonthi Champa, Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh

VERSUS

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE …RESPONDENT

Tikrapara, Raipur, Chattisgarh-492 001 APPEARANCE:

MR. Rudrakash Pandey, Advocate for the appellant Shri Anand Narayan, Authorised Representative for the respondent

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER NO.50718/2026 Date of Hearing/Decision: 24.03.2026

ASHOK JINDAL:

1. Both the appeals involve a common issue, a common issue

and are disposed of by this common order.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant received certain amounts for services provided by them. The Revenue, on the basis of data received from the Income Tax Department (Form 26AS), asked the

2

appellant to provide details of the services rendered vide letters dated 08.10.2018 and 15.10.2018 for the period 2013–2014, without waiting for the reply from the appellant, a Show Cause Notice was issued demanding Service Tax on the amount reflected in (Form 26AS).The Adjudicating Authority observed that the appellant had provided taxable services without obtaining Service Tax registration and, in the absence of any documentary evidence, confirmed the demand. Aggrieved by the said

order, the appellant has filed the present appeal before me.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case has been made without any proper investigation and solely on the basis of third-party evidence. It is contended that the demand raised against the appellant is not sustainable in law. Reliance has been placed on the

decision in the case of Mahendra Singh

4. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative submits that the appellant did not furnish any documents before the Department despite being given sufficient opportunities, therefore, the

Adjudicating Authority has rightly confirmed the demand.

5. I have heard both sides and perused the records.

6. It is observed that the appellant has contended that no notice for personal hearing was received by them. It is further observed that the Adjudicating Authority has passed the impugned order without considering any reply or evidence from the appellant, therefore in the

3

interest of justice, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the case afresh on merits after considering the documents to be submitted by the appellant within 15 days and after providing an opportunity of personal hearing. The Adjudicating Authority shall passed the order from the date providing the documents within two months. The appeal is disposed of by way of

remand as stated above.

[Order dictated and pronounced in open court]

(ASHOK JINDAL)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

RR