Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Gc Electrical &Hvac P Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Navi Mumbai on 3 March, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
WEST ZONAL BENCH
SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO: 86289 OF 2021
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: AJV/233/RGD APP/2020-21 dated 4th
February 2021 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise &
Service Tax (Appeals), Riagad.]
GC Electrical & HVAC P Ltd
Shop No. 1, BMC Patra Chawl, JB Road, Cotton Green
Mumbai - 400083 ... Appellant
versus
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Navi Mumbai
CGO Complex, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai - 400614 ...Respondent
APPEARANCE:
Shri Deepak Chavan, Advocate for the appellant Shri Dhananjay Dahiwale, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO: _85320/2025 DATE OF HEARING: 03/03/2025 DATE OF DECISION: 03/03/2025 Proceedings were initiated against M/s GC Electrical & HVAC P Ltd which culminated in order for recovery of ₹ 20,07,720 obliged to have been discharged under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 for ST/86289/2021 2 having rendered 'works contract service' and 'erection and commissioning service' between October 2013 to March 2016, along with appropriate interest under section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 while imposing penalty of like amount under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Upon challenge, the order1 of Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Raigad upheld the demand, along with interest and penalty, leading to the present appeal.
2. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that though they had not discharged the tax liability, as set out in the respective returns filed during the period, the shortfall in such levies had been made goods subsequently. It was further submitted that, with the liability having arisen upon issue of invoices, the elapse of time in receiving the consideration caused deficit that prevented them from discharging the liability as and when due. He explained that the show cause notice was not served on them and the proceedings before the original authority had been determined ex-parte owing to which opportunity to make the details of tax payment available was denied to them. It was further submitted that this plea before the first appellate authority was not considered inasmuch as the impugned order has upheld the invoking of the extended period under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 for not having participated in adjudication proceedings. 1 [order-in-appeal no: AJV/233/RGD APP/2020-21 dated 4th February 2021] ST/86289/2021 3
3. We have heard Learned Authorised Representative who submitted that there is no evidence of tax liability having been discharged and that the impugned order was bound to uphold the order of the adjudicating authority in absence thereof.
4. The appellant claims to have deposited all tax liability, albeit belatedly, and that they had no opportunity to place that on record. Detailed tabulation of tax liability and reconciliation with due discharge has been filed; if the submission of the appellant is correct, the only aspect that requires determination is discharge of liability to interest under section 75 of Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the matter needs to be determined afresh. To enable this, the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for fresh adjudication after taking into consideration the submissions of the appellant herein.
5. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and Pronounced in Open Court) (C J MATHEW) Member (Technical) */as