##PAGE1##

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I

Service Tax Appeal No. 86994 of 2023

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CSM/281/RGD APP/2022-23 dated 30.01.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Raigarh.)

Vikram Bodhraj Tannan .… Appellant Capsulation Premises, Sion Tombay Road, Deonar,

Mumbai – 400 088.

Versus

Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, …. Respondent Navi Mumbai

16^th Floor, Satra Plaza, Sector – 19D, Palm Beach Road, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 705.

APPEARANCE:

Ms. Priyanka Kalani, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri S.B.P. Sinha, Authorized Representative for the Respondent

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. A/85569/2026

Date of Hearing: 01.04.2026 Date of Decision: 01.04.2026

Per: M.M. Parthiban

This appeal has been filed by Shri Vikram Bodhraj Tannan (herein after, for short, referred to as ‘the appellant’) against the Order-in-Appeal No. CSM/281/RGD APP/2022-23 dated 30.01.2022 (referred to, as ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals),

Raigarh.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Division-VI, Navi Mumbai had on the basis of Income Tax Returns received from the Income Tax authorities, on correlation with the Service Tax Returns filed by the appellant, had come to the conclusion that for the financial year 2015-16, 2016-17 and April 2017 to June 2017, had not paid the service tax amounting to Rs.19,23,654/- and initiated the show-cause proceedings for demand of service tax along with interest under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 68 ibid and for imposition of penalties under Sections 77 and 78 ibid. In

2 ST/86994/2023

adjudication of the case, vide Order-in-Original dated 20.05.2022, the original authority had confirmed all the proposals made in the show-cause notice. Being dissatisfied with the original order, the appellant had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Raigarh, who in disposing such appeal, has held that the appeal filed by the appellant was liable for rejection on account of non-payment of mandatory pre-deposit in terms Instructions issued by the CBIC vide File No. CBIC-240137/14/2022- SERVICE TAX Section -CBEC dated 28.10.2022. Feeling aggrieved with the said order of the first appellate authority dated 30.01.2022 (which is

impugned herein), appellant has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

3. Heard both sides and perused the case records.

4. It is a fact on record that in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made appliable to matters relating to Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 before entertaining any appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, pre-deposit of requisite percentage of the service tax demand is required to be paid by the person preferring the appeal. The appellant in this case has paid an amount of Rs.1,44,275/- through Debit Entry No. DC2707220095387 dated 14.07.2022 through Electronic Ledger in GST Form DRC-03 dated 14.07.2022. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had recorded the reasons for not entertaining the appeal is not considering the amount paid as pre-deposit made by the

appellant as follows: -

“13. Further, in persuasion of Hon'ble Bombay High court order in Writ Petition No. 6220 of 2022 in the matter of M/s Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., CBIC issued Instruction vide file No. CBIC- 240137/14/2022-SERVICE TAX SECTION-CBEC dated 28.10.2022. In para 4 of the above Instruction, it has been clarified that payment through DRC- 03 under CGST regime is not a valid mode of payment for making pre- deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with section 35F of the Central Excise Act,

1944.

14. Any recovery/deposit under erstwhile law has to be made under erstwhile law unless specifically mentioned in CGS