P.R. Chandrasekharan, J. - (1.)THE appeal and miscellaneous application are directed against Order -in -Original No. 105 -116/IDG(33)/COMMR(ADJ)/RGD/05 -06, dated 24 -3 -2006 passed by the Commissioner (Adjudication), Central Excise & Customs, Raigad, Navi Mumbai. The Miscellaneous Application has been filed to incorporate show cause notice dated 29 -1 -2004 in the appeal memorandum as against the show cause notice dated 23 -4 -2004 which was wrongly entered in the appeal memorandum. To correct the mistake, the miscellaneous application is filed. The miscellaneous application is allowed.
(2.)VIDE the impugned order, Service Tax demand of Rs. 14,84,782/ - has been confirmed against the appellant, M/s. GFA Anlagenbau GmbH, Germany, for rendering 'Consulting Engineer's Service' to M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. during the period 1999 -2000 along with interest and penalty. Aggrieved of the same the appellant is before us.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the show cause notice dated 29 -1 -2004 pertaining to the present appeal was issued to M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. who were asked to show cause as to why the service tax amount of Rs. 14,84,782/ - on the consulting engineer's service received by them during 1999 -2000 from the appellant should not be demanded and recovered. There was no demand in the said notice towards Service Tax from the appellant at all. In other words, even though a copy of the notice appears to have been endorsed to the appellant, no demand has been made against the appellant, either directly or indirectly. However, the learned adjudicating authority, while passing the impugned order, dropped the demand against M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. and confirmed the demand against the appellant, only on the ground that the appellant has been named as a notice in the show cause notice and the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner has confirmed that the show cause notices were sent to the appellant also at his address. It is the contention of the learned counsel that they did not receive any notice for personal hearing. They received the adjudication order through the Consulate General of India in Frankfurt, Germany. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated and the demand is unsustainable in law in the absence of notice to the appellant to show cause. The learned counsel also submits that even on merits the Revenue does not have a case inasmuch as the services were rendered with regard to 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services' which came under the tax net w.e.f. 1 -7 -2003. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

(3.)THE learned Additional Commissioner (AR) reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority.