" (1) Appeal No. ST/30076/2024 CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. – I Single Member Bench Service Tax Appeal No. 30076 of 2024 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.HYD-SVTAX-RR-AP2-343-23-24-ST, dated 20.12.2023 passed by Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II), Hyderabad) Vege Srinivasa Rao .. APPELLANT H.No. 1-98/9/A, Near Hitech Theatre, Arunodaya Colony, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 081. VERSUS Commissioner of Central Tax .. RESPONDENT Rangareddy – GST GST Commissionerate, Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Ramkoti, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 001. APPEARANCE: Shri P.V.B. Chary, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri K. Sreenivasa Reddy, Authorised Representative for the Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER No. A/30348/2024 Date of Hearing:06.08.2024 Date of Decision:06.08.2024 [ORDER PER: A.K. JYOTISHI] Shri Vege Srinivasa Rao (hereinafter referred to as appellant) is in appeal against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 20.12.2023 whereby the Order-in-Original passed by the Original Authority was set aside and the matter was remanded back to Original Authority for decision afresh for the period 10/2014 to 06/2017 after observing the principles of natural justice (impugned order). 2. Learned Advocate for the appellant’s main ground is that in this case there is a clear breach of principles of Natural Justice by the Original Authority, as they had neither received the Show Cause Notice nor the (2) Appeal No. ST/30076/2024 notices for personal hearings. He further states that all these grounds were taken up before the Commissioner (Appeals), however, the Commissioner (Appeals) while holding that there is a clear cut time bar for demand for the period during 04/2014 to 09/2014, however, did not given any clear direction as regards their other grounds raised before him. They have also relied on certain case laws in support of their contention that in the absence of serving of Show Cause Notice to the appellant, the demand could not be sustained. They have also relied on the case law of CCE, Aurangabad Vs Sidheshwar SSL Ltd., [2011 (274) ELT 141 (Tri-Mumbai)] wherein it was held that in the absence of Show Cause Notice, the orders cannot be confirmed by the Department. 3. On the other hand, Learned AR reiterates the findings and observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) and points out that Commissioner (Appeals) has addressed all the grounds raised by the appellant and has passed reasonable order by way of remanding the matter for decision afresh by the Lower Authority. He invites the attention to paragraph 8,9 and 10 of the impugned order. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 5. The short question for decision here is that whether in the facts of the case, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) suffers from any infirmity in deciding the matter by remanding it back to the Original Authority keeping in view of the grounds which were raised by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals). I find that the grounds which were raised by the appellant, as discussed in para 4 of the impugned order, covers two broad aspects, firstly, that the demand for the period 2014-15 is time barred (3) Appeal No. ST/30076/2024 and secondly that there is no issue of show cause notice or correspondences etc., as alleged in the Order-in-Original from the Department and therefore there was a clear breach of principles of natural justice in the Order-in- Original. On going through the impugned order, I find that as far as the first issue is concerned there is a clear finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the demand for the period 10/2014 to 06/2017 is not sustainable and therefore, he has set aside the same as time barred. There is no dispute by the Revenue on this issue. 6. As far as the second ground is concerned, I find that he has also taken into account the grounds of non-receiving the letters of personal hearings as well as not getting the show cause notice and has come to the conclusion that there is a merit in appellant’s contention that there is a violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the impugned order was set aside. Therefore, on this count also he has given observations and directions. 7. Coming to the moot point as to whether the Show Cause Notice was received or not by the appellant, he has considered this specific ground taken up by the appellant and in para 10, interalia, he has observed that since the appellant has questioned the serving of the notice, the Original Authority has to verify the same and decide. Therefore, it is obvious that in the remand proceedings, the Original Authority has to first ensure that there was a prior serving of Show Cause Notice in accordance with the law on the appellant before proceeding any further to decide the matter. The apprehension of the appellant that the direction in the impugned order to file the reply to the notice along with all the relevant documents like Balance Sheet, ITR, Form 26-AS, work orders, invoices/bills, ledgers etc., would indicate as if even without deciding the issue of Show Cause Notice, they will (4) Appeal No. ST/30076/2024 required to respond to show cause notice and submit documents in their defence and that Original Authority can proceed to decide demand. A plain reading of the impugned order would indicate otherwise as in this case it is obvious that first the Adjudicating Authority is required to decide the issue of serving of proper notice on the appellant and thereafter by way of natural justice an opportunity is also to be extended for appellant to produce all the relevant documents in support of their defence. Thereafter, if the show cause notice has not been served in accordance with the law Original Authority would not be able to proceed further and would be bound by the law including various citations relied by the appellant in this regard. 8. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in remanding the matter back for decision afresh for the period 10/2014 to 06/2017 subject to certain observations and directions. 9. Learned Advocate also points out that the Original Authority has not decided the matter on remand so far and therefore it is expected that the Adjudicating Authority would take up this matter within 3 months of issuance of this order and decide in accordance with the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 10. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and there is no ground for setting aside the same. 11. Appeal is disposed off accordingly. (Dictated and Pronounced in open court) (A.K. JYOTISHI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) jaya "