FINAL ORDER NO. 50967-50968/2026

DR. RACHNA GUPTA

Present order disposes off two appeals pertaining to the same appellant involving same issues but for the different periods arising out of two different show cause notices: - The details of both the appeals are as follows: -

Both these appeals were listed on 13.03.2026 when none had appeared for the appellant. The order dated 13.03.2026 reads as follows: -

“None is present for the appellant. The appeal pertains to the year 2018. Perusal of file reveals that vide order dated 18.07.2025, the appellant was already warned with last opportunity. Despite those warnings it is the fourth time that the appellant has opted to not to appear. Resultantly, we refrain ourselves to adjourn the appeal any further. Learned Departmental Representative has filed the written synopsis. Arguments on behalf of the department heard. Order stands reserved. Ten days’ time, however, is given to the appellant to file the submissions, if desired.”

Later written submissions were filed by the appellant.

2. Briefly stated, M/s Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd., the appellants, are registered with the service tax department for providing taxable service under the category of “Franchise Service”. They are also engaged in trading of Bhujiya, Papad Fried, Namkeen etc., being the registered proprietor of the trademark, “Haldiram Bhujiyawala”. During the audit for the period from financial year 2009-10 to 2013-14 department observed following discrepancies: -

i. Non-payment of Service Tax on GTA expenditure under Reverse Charge Mechanism.

ii. Non-payment of Service Tax on import of Service under Reverse Charge Mechanism - On verification of Financial records(ledgers submitted by the appellant at the time of investigation) it was observed that the appellant had received ‘Legal and Professional Services’ in respect of registration/renewal of appellant's trade name, from the places outside India and had made payments/ trade mark charges to their service providers (attorneys) in foreign currency, but service tax was not paid by them under Reverse Charge Mechanism till 30.06.2012.

iii. Non-reversal of proportionate Cenvat Credit availed under the head 'Legal & Professional Services" under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 treating them as exclusive service.

3. The appellant accepted the contentions of the audit and accepted discrepancy at serial no. 1. above and deposited service tax along with applicable interest. The appellant did not agree with the objection at Sr. No- 3. However, appellant submitted reply dated 08.12.2016 along with the requisite documents. The same was not found satisfactory. Department also formed the opinion that the photocopies of the bills submitted were still reflecting the appellant’s liabilities to pay service tax. Accordingly, the aforementioned two Show Cause Notices (SCNs) were served upon the appellants while invoking the extended period of limitation. The amount as mentioned in the table above were proposed to be recovered along with the interest at the appropriate rate and the proportionate penalties.

4. The proposal was initially confirmed vie the aforementioned Orders- In Original (OIOs). Appeals against the same have been rejected vide Orders-In Appeal (OIAs) as mentioned in the table above. Being aggrieved the appellants are before this tribunal.

5. None had appeared for the appellant but the written submissions have been filed. We have perused the grounds of appeal as well as the said reply. The appellants are