Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs MUMBAI WEST

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI

REGIONAL BENCH


Service Tax Appeal No: 85609 of 2026

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. MUM/CGST/MW/COMMR/VKG/29-
30/2025-26 dated 01.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai
West.]


Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant
Ocean View, J.P. Road, Versova
Andheri West,
Mumbai – 400 061
versus
Commissioner of CGST …Respondent
Mumbai West
th
6 Floor, D Wing, BSNL Administrative Building
Juhu-Tara Road, Santacruz (W),
Mumbai - 400054


With

Service Tax Appeal No: 85610 of 2026

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. MUM/CGST/MW/COMMR/VKG/29-
30/2025-26 dated 01.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai
West.]


Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant
Ocean View, J.P. Road, Versova
Andheri West,
Mumbai – 400 061
versus
Commissioner of CGST …Respondent
Mumbai West
th
6 Floor, D Wing, BSNL Administrative Building
Juhu-Tara Road, Santacruz (W),
Mumbai – 400054

APPEARANCE:
Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for the appellant
Shri J.K. Jain, Joint Commissioner (AR) for the respondent

ST/85609 & 85610/2026
2


CORAM:

HON’BLE MR S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON’BLE MR M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)


FINAL ORDER NO: 86397-86398 /2026


DATE OF HEARING: 11.11.2026
DATE OF DECISION: 11.11.2026



PER: S.K. MOHANTY

Heard both sides and examined the case records.

2. The appellant has assailed the impugned order dated
01.10.2025, mainly on the ground that the adjudicating authority
has not properly addressed to the allegations levelled in the show
cause notices (SCNs) vis-à-vis the defence submissions made
pursuant thereto, while adjudicating the matter. The appellant has
specifically stated that the reply to the SCNs was filed on
30.09.2025, whereas the impugned order was passed on the very
next day i.e., 01.10.2025. Further, it was also contended that the
details of the arguments placed by the appellant in the reply to
the SCNs issued were also not properly examined for arriving at
the conclusion that the appellant should be liable for payment of
service tax in respect of the alleged copyright services provided
by it.

3. On perusal of the case records, we find that the reply
dated 30.09.2025 filed by the appellant pursuant to the SCNs
were entirely extracted in the impugned order from page nos.
126 to 158, which was passed on the very next day i.e., on
01.10.2025; while the findings recorded therein were confined
only to two paragraphs containing barely 12-14 lines. A plain
reading of the impugned order clearly demonstrates that the

ST/85609 & 85610/2026
3


issues detailed in the reply and those alleged in the SCNs were
not considered in their proper perspective for arriving at a
conclusion for deciding the matter against the appellant. It is a
settled position of law that the officials exercising the quasi-
judicial functions, carry the responsibility of justifying their role
and building credibility by instilling confidence in the
adjudicatory process. In other words, a quasi-judicial authority
cannot pre-judge an issue or ignore a reply submitted by the
aggrieved party, while adjudicating the charges levelled in the
SCNs, which precisely has been done in the present case. Thus,
it is evident that the original authority had not properly
examined the factual as well as the legal aspects, to conclude
that the appellant should be liable for payment of service tax in
respect of the alleged copyright services provided by it.

4. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances
of the case, especially when the impugned order has been
passed without discussing the merits and confining the findings
to only few paragraphs, we are of the view that this is a fit case,
where the matter can be remanded back to the original authority
for a detailed fact finding in respect of the SCNs issued to the
appellant.


5. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and
the appeals are allowed by way of remand to the original
authority. It is made clear that this is an open remand and the
adjudicating authority should address all the issues involved in the
SCNs issued to the appellant. Needless to say that reasonable
opportunity of personal hearing should be granted to the appellant
before deciding the issue(s) afresh. Since the issue pertains to
the period 2012-15, it is expected that the original authority
should complete the denovo adjudication proceedings and to pass
an order, preferably within a period of six months from the date
of this order.

ST/85609 & 85610/2026
4




6. In the result, appeals are allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated and Pronounced in Open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY)
Member (Judicial)





(M.M. PARTHIBAN)
Member (Technical)

/as *