JM Mhatre Infra Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai)
The Hon’ble court set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original authority for fresh consideration.
The appeal before the CESTAT, Mumbai concerned a tax demand of ₹39,35,96,714 raised against the appellant under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period 2015–16 to 2017–18, on the allegation that several taxable services had been provided without payment of service tax. The appellant contended that the services subjected to tax in the impugned order were exempt and that the claim of exemption was supported by necessary documentation submitted before the adjudicating authority. It was argued that the work was executed for CIDCO, which, being a government authority, qualified for exemption. Reliance was placed on an earlier decision of the Tribunal in the appellant’s own case for a different period, where the matter had been remanded for fresh adjudication in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. on works contract service, errors in computation, and unresolved issues relating to transport of goods by road and renting of immovable property service. The appellant also relied on the Tribunal’s decision in Mira Construction, where similar issues were remanded due to inadequate examination of documents by the original authority. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order had not examined the status of CIDCO as discussed in judicial precedents and had failed to properly consider the documents submitted, which was disputed by the appellant. Referring to the reasoning in Mira Construction, the Tribunal held that it would not be appropriate for it to examine the documents in detail for the first time. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration of taxability and exemption claims. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, with the operative order pronounced on 17 September 2025.
