Commissioner (Appeals) jurisdiction limited to original notice scope. Order set aside, matter remitted. Appeal allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to issue a fresh show cause notice beyond the scope of the original notice. The order dated 31.03.2021 was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to confine the decision to the original show cause notice dated 07.09.2017 and the order dated 19.03.2018. The appeal was allowed on this basis.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to issue a fresh show cause notice.
2. Powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 85(4) and (5) of the Finance Act.
3. Applicability of section 35A(3) of the Excise Act to the Finance Act.
4. Validity of the extended period of limitation invoked by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to Issue a Fresh Show Cause Notice:
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to issue a fresh show cause notice dated 29.12.2020 for a demand of Rs. 37,05,65,104/-, which was not covered by the original show cause notice dated 07.09.2017. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the jurisdiction to issue a fresh notice under section 73(1) of the Finance Act while hearing an appeal under section 85 of the Finance Act. The Tribunal emphasized that a notice is the foundation for levy of tax and the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority cannot go beyond the issues raised in the show cause notice. The power to issue a notice is specifically provided for in section 73(1) of the Finance Act and cannot be assumed under section 85(4).

2. Powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 85(4) and (5) of the Finance Act:
The Tribunal examined the scope of powers under section 85(4) and (5) of the Finance Act. It was noted that while section 85(4) confers wide powers on the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass such orders as he thinks fit, including enhancement of service tax, interest, or penalty, these powers are subject to the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot assume the power to issue a fresh notice under section 73(1) merely because of the wide powers conferred under section 85(4).

3. Applicability of Section 35A(3) of the Excise Act to the Finance Act:
The Tribunal analyzed whether the second proviso to section 35A(3) of the Excise Act, which allows the Commissioner (Appeals) to issue a notice for short-paid duty, could be applied to service tax matters under section 85(5) of the Finance Act. It was concluded that section 35A of the Excise Act is not mentioned in section 83 of the Finance Act, which lists the applicable sections of the Excise Act for service tax matters. Therefore, the powers under section 35A(3) cannot be superimposed on section 85(5) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal cited judgments from the Gujarat High Court and the Madras High Court, which supported this interpretation.

4. Validity of the Extended Period of Limitation Invoked by the Commissioner (Appeals):
The Tribunal did not delve into the specifics of the extended period of limitation invoked by the Commissioner (Appeals), as the primary ground for setting aside the order was the lack of jurisdiction to issue the fresh notice. However, it was noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had invoked the extended period under the second proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, alleging suppression of facts by the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a fresh order confined to the original show cause notice dated 07.09.2017 and the order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner. The appeal was allowed to this extent, emphasizing that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot issue a fresh notice beyond the scope of the original notice.

---