Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ganesh Ambadas Sandhan vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 7 May, 2026
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 86440 OF 2025
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. NSK/EXCUS/000/APPL/462/2024-25 dated
27.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & C.Ex, Nashik).
SHRI GANESH AMBADAS SANDHAN Appellant
Proprietor-Sandhan Infotech,
Shreeniwas, 15, Priyanka Garden,
Khutwad Nagar, Near I.T.I. Bridge,
Nashik-422 009.
VERSUS
THE COMMISSIOENR OF CGST & CENTRAL ........Respondent
EXCISE, NASHIK COMMISSIONERATE, Plot No. 155, Sector-34, NH, Jayesh-Vaishakh, CIDCO, Nashik-422 008.
APPERANCE:
Shri G.P. Pingle, Consultant for the Appellant Shri Dhananjay Dahiwale, Dy. Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER NO. A/85650/2026 Date of Hearing: 07.05.2026 Date of Decision: 07.05.2026 Heard from both the sides on this appeal and same is taken up for order.
2. Ld. Counsel for Appellant submits that appellant is 100 percent export oriented unit at the relevant time who had not taken registration as export was being done to only one client situated at U.K. namely M/s.
2ST/86440/2025 Storm Internet Ltd., and in view of Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 (read with Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules) that commands registration only for a person who is required to pay Service Tax, they had not registered as export of Service was exempted from payment of service tax and this fact they have clearly mentioned in their written submission filed before the Adjudicating Authority on dated 25.03.2023 through email (copy available at page 24-25 of Appeal Memo) but in the Order-in-Original dated 26.04.2023 at para-9, the Adjudicating Authority had clearly mentioned that no reply to the Show cause was submitted till the date of passing of the order. He further submitted that though three hearing dates were noted in the said order, it is silent about any service of notice on the appellant so as to enable him/it to participate in the hearing proceedings and therefore, the order passed against the appellant in its absence is a clear violation of the principle of natural justice that is required to be restored back to the appellant by way of dismissal of the Order-in-Appeal that confirms the Adjudication Order-in-Original, even after noting that the Adjudicating Authority namely the Dy. Commissioner did not consider the reply submitted by the appellant in his order at para-2 of the grounds of the appeal being reiterated in the Order-in-Appeal.
3. Ld. Authorised Representative supports the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and justifies that it is noted in the order that appellant has not provided any evidence regarding export of service and had not taken registration of the firm for providing such services, for which the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) need not be interfered with.
4. I have gone through the Appeal Paper Book and relevant documents available therein. As could be noticed, appellant had in fact filed reply to the Show cause after hearing of the appeal was concluded on 25.03.2020, but there is nothing on record to justify service of notice on the appellant. But what is noticeable is that there was a shift of jurisdiction from Nashik to Nagpur after show-cause was issued and the Nagpur Audit Dy. Commissioner had passed the Order-in-Original in the absence of appellant and without consideration of its reply filed in response to the Show-cause, though belatedly. Section 73 Sub-section (2) clearly stipulates that the Central Excise Officer shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by the person on whom notice is served under Sub-Section 1, 3 ST/86440/2025 determine the amount of service tax due from or erroneously refunded to such person and thereafter such person shall pay the amount so determined but in the instant case, the representation of the assessee was not, at all, taken into consideration. It is also required to be placed on record that service of notice under sub-section 1 also includes its proviso that covers the extended period. Therefore, when the Order-in-Appeal is passed without taking into consideration representation or submission of the assessee appellant and in its absence, the same order cannot be considered as sustainable both in law and fact. Accordingly, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the said Order-in Original is also a nullify.
5. As Ld. Counsel for the Appellant wanted that appellant be heard before any reasoned order is passed, I am of the considered view that matter is required to be remanded back to the Original Adjudicating authority for de-novo adjudication after taking note of the submission made by the appellant and after hearing the appellant during such proceedings with, due notice of such personal hearing . Hence the Order:
The Order
6. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Original Adjudicating Authority for de-novo adjudication as per above direction and for that purpose Order-in-Appeal No. NSK/EXCUS/000/APPL/462/2024-25 dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & C.Ex, Nashik, is hereby set aside.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati) Member (Judicial) Arti