##PAGE1##

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD

REGIONAL BENCH

EXCISE APPEAL NO: 70399 OF 2017

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No: 65/COMMISSIONER/NOIDA- II/2016-17 dated 28/02/2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central

Excise, Noida – II.]

GODDONE INFRASTRUCTURES PVT LTD F-45, Sector-11, Noida Uttar Pradesh - 201301 …Appellant

versus Commissioner of Central Excise

Noida – II Wegmans Business Park, Plot No.3, Knowledge Park – III, Greater Noida

Gautam Buddh Nagar - 201306 …Respondent

WITH

EXCISE APPEAL NO: 70357 OF 2024

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: NOI-EXCUS-001-APP-1846-17-18 dated 19/03/2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central

Tax (Appeals), Noida.]

GODDONE INFRASTRUCTURES PVT LTD F-45, Sector-11, Noida Uttar Pradesh - 201301 …Appellant

versus Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST &

Central Excise Noida C-56/42, Renu Tower, Sector – 62, Noida - 201307 …Respondent

APPEARANCE:

Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate for the appellant Ms Chitra Srivastav, Authorised Representative for the respondent

E/70399/2017 & E/70357/2024

2

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO: 70103-70104 /2026

DATE OF HEARING: 06/04/2026 DATE OF DECISION: 06/04/2026

PER: AJAY SHARMA

These appeals have been filed against the impugned

orders, viz., Order-in-Original No. 65/COMMISSIONER/NOIDA- II/2016-17 dated 28/02/2017 and Order-in-Appeal No. NOI- EXCUS-001-APP-1846-17-18 dated 19/03/2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida – II and Commissioner of

Customs & Central Tax (Appeals), Noida, respectively.

2. We have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of

Revenue and perused the records.

3. During the course of hearing, our attention was drawn to the conduct of the appellant in one of the appeals before the adjudicating authority i.e., the Learned Commissioner, which has been recorded in paragraph 4 of the impugned order as

extracted herein below

‘Many opportunity of being heard were extended to the party by issuing letters fixing personal hearing on dates

E/70399/2017 & E/70357/2024

3

30.11.2016, 01.12.2016, 14.12.2016, 03.01.2017, 25.01.2017 and 22.02.2017. However, no one from the

party side turned up for the personal hearing.’

The said record indicates that despite various opportunities given no representation was made on behalf of the appellant before

the adjudicating authority.

4. When this aspect was put to the Learned Counsel for the appellant, it was contended that, even in the absence of appearance, the adjudicating authority was under an obligation to consider the pleadings and pass a reasoned order thereon. However, upon careful consideration, we find that the position is not as straight forward as sought to be projected. Though after some arguments, learned Counsel prayed for remanding the appeals and filed the synopsis to that effect which are extracted

hereunder:

‘1. In the Appeal no. E/70399/2017, the appellant could not appear before the Adjudicating Authority at the time of personal hearing and therefore, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Central Excise Duty by invoking extended period of limitation and also demanding interest and

imposing equal penalty.

2. In Appeal No. E/70357/2024, the learned Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the appeal partially by setting aside the demand for the extended

period of limitation.

3. Subsequent, to the filing of above referred appeals the Hon’ble CESTAT has passed Final Orders on the

E/70399/2017 & E/70357/2024

4

issue and such decisions were not available to the Adjudicating Authority at the time they passed the

Orders.

4. In view of the above, it is submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to the extent it is prejudicial to the

interest of the Appellant.’

5. The prayer for remand was opposed by learned Authorised Representative appearing for Revenue by submitting that despite so many opportunities th