Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Nayyar Engineering Works vs Commissioner Of Central Goods & ... on 27 August, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I
Service Tax Appeal No. 60128 of 2024
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. JNK-EXCUS-APP-26/2023-24 dated
20.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Jammu]
M/s Nayyar Engineering Works ......Appellant
M-4, Industrial Area, Jalandhar,
Punjab-144004
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Goods & ......Respondent
Service Tax, Jalandhar Central GST Bhawan, C.R. Building, Model Town Road, Jalandhar, Punjab-144001 APPEARANCE:
Ms. Sonia Arora, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri Goverdhan Dass Bansal, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 61029/2025 DATE OF HEARING: 27.08.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 27.08.2025 The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original.
2 ST/60128/2024
2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant was providing taxable service falling under the taxable Category services. An inquiry was conducted in respect of the Appellant for the Financial Year 2014-15. As per the third-party data, the Appellant has reflected gross service receipts of Rs. 38,74,071/- in ITR/26AS. The enquiry was initiated by calling for the information /documents such as contract received/agreement(s) entered into with any firm/person for providing or receiving any type of activities/services. The jurisdictional Range officer had sent letter on 20.08.2019 with the request to submit relevant financial documents/records viz. copies of Income Tax Returns, Balance Sheets along with Profit and Loss Account, Form 26AS etc. for the Financial Year 2014-15. Since, the Appellant failed to produce the relevant documents establishing the exemption of Service Tax on the whole value declared in ITR 26 AS in response to any of the communication made through issuance of letter. telephonically etc. hence to arrive at the correct value of the Taxable Service provided best judgment assessment as provided under section 72 of the Act was resorted to by relying on data so supplied by the Income Tax Department.
3. The appellant has put forth that they had two PAN Nos. during material period and that they filed service tax returns on PAN No. AABFN8729L under service tax Registration NO. AABFN8729LST001 and Income tax returns for PAN No. AAJFM3878R. In the instant case, the appellant has failed to mention any circumstances or reasons for getting two PAN numbers and they apparently used both 3 ST/60128/2024 PAN Numbers for different purposes which clearly denote that it was not unintentional, further there is nothing on record to imply that the appellant is involved in the activities, which would be covered in the above service mentioned in sub-section(n) of the section 66D of Finance Act. 1994. Apart from services mentioned under negative list, there are specific exemption under Notification No 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. The appellant has not brought anything record to suggest that the services /activities in respect of which the demand has raised in the instant case does not pertain to taxable services or the same are exempted in terms of provisions of Law.
4. On these allegations, a show cause notice dated 29.11.2020 was issued to the appellant for recovery of service tax of Rs.4,78,835/- under Section 73 along with interest under Section 75 of the Act. The penalty was also proposed under Section 77 and Section 78 of the Act. After following the due process, the Original Authority confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.4,78,835/- along with interest of Rs. 10,000/- and equal penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case.
6. Learned Consultant for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. She further submits that the appellant has filed all the documents before the Adjudicating Authority while filing the reply to the show cause 4 ST/60128/2024 notice but the same was not considered at all by the Adjudicating Authority and without considering the submissions of the appellant, the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Appellate Authority has decided the appeal against the appellant. She further submits that Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has admitted that the appellant has paid the mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% under the same PAN No. AABFN8729L. She further submits that the appellant, by mistake, was issued two PAN numbers and as soon as it came to their notice, they wrote a letter dated 06.07.2016 to the Income Tax officer requesting the said authority to cancel one of the PAN numbers; they have also filed audit reports and the balance sheets under PAN No. AAJFM3878R.
7. Learned Consultant also submits that in the show cause notice, the Revenue has alleged that the appellant is not registered under the Service Tax whereas the fact of the matter is that they are registered but under a different PAN number and has been continuously paying service tax for the last more than 15 years. She further submits that though in the show cause notice, the extended period has been invoked without establishing that the appellant has suppressed material fact from the Department with intent to evade payment of service tax.
8. On the other hand, learned AR reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that the appellant, in spite of many opportunities given to them, did not appear before the Original Authority to explain under what circumstances, two PAN numbers 5 ST/60128/2024 have been issued to them. He further submits that the appellant can still explain to the Original Authority the circumstances under which two PAN numbers have been allotted to them and whether they have been filing service tax Return and paying service tax under a different PAN number. He further submits that the matter should be remanded back to the Original Authority where the appellant can explain all the facts on the basis of documents to settle the issue.
9. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that though the appellant has made detailed submissions along with documentary evidences before the Original Authority but did not appear for personal hearing when the matter was listed for hearing and because of their non- appearance, the Original Authority has decided the matter on the basis of documentary evidences alone without considering the submissions of the appellant. In view of these circumstances, it is in the interest of justice that the matter may be remanded to the Original Authority to examine the case of the appellant afresh. Accordingly, I remand the matter to the Original Authority with a direction to consider the case of the appellant after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant and also affording an opportunity of producing any other evidence in support of their submission.
10. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Original Authority in above terms. The Original authority is directed to decide the case 6 ST/60128/2024 within a period of 03 months after receiving the certified copy of this order.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court) (S. S. GARG) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) PK