CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD E-Hearing REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.I Service Tax Appeal No.70624 of 2025 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.NOI-EXCUS-APPL-002-NOIDA-397-24-25 dated 26.03.2025 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) CGST & Central Excise, Noida)

M/s A. P. Construction & Suppliers, …..Appellant (142, Green Park, Bareilly, U.P.)

VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise &

CGST, Noida ….Respondent (Noida)

APPEARANCE Shri Kapil Vaish, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Ms. Chitra Srivastava, Authorized Representative for the Respondent FINAL ORDER NO.- 70002/2026 DATE OF HEARING : 27.11.2025 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.01.2026 The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant assailing the Order-in-Appeal No.NOI-EXCUS-APPL-002-NOIDA- 397-24-25 dated 26-03-2025 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Noida.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Appellant is mainly engaged in construction of road, as a civil contractor. On the basis of information received from Income Tax Department, a Show Cause Notice, CORAM: HON’BLE MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) dated 20-12-2020 was issued proposing to demand Service Tax amounting to Rs.12,66,832/- for the year 2015-16 & 2016-17 by invoking extended period of limitation. In the first round of litigation, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 28-06-2022 confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs.5,06,732/- after granting

1 SCN

abatement of 60% under Rule 2A of Valuation Rules and dropped the demand of Rs.7,60,100/-. It also imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994, demanded late fee of Rs.40,000/- and imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77(2) of Finance Act, 1994.

3. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), Noida vide order dated 26-10-2022 remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority after observing that services provided to Nagar Nigam, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Tube Well Division are exempt under Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20-06-2012. He also observed that only following amounts received by the Appellants were taxable:-

4. In the second round of litigation in remand proceedings, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner reduced the demand of Service Tax to Rs.1,81,678/- after observing that 50% Service Tax was payable by Service Receiver and that the demand for the period upto September, 2014 was barred by limitation. He imposed equal penalty under Section 78 and penalty of Rs.40,000/- under Section 77(2) for not filing Service Tax return for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 26-03-2025 upheld the order of Assistant Commissioner.

5. The learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the SCN could not have been issued on the basis of third party information, by invoking extended period of limitation. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions:-

(a) Sharma Fabricators & Erectors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Allahabad reported in 2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 96 (Tri.-All.).

(b) Vasan Traders Vs. CCE & ST, Lucknow reported in

2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 116 (Tri.-All.).

(c) Final Order No.70775/2025 dated 06-11-2025 in the case of M/s H. M. Gupta.

(d) Final Order No.70810/2025 dated 19-11-2025 in the case of M/s Ajay Kumar Agarwal.

6. It is further submitted that the amount received from M/s Kanwhizz Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Kanwhizz., during 2015-16 should have been taken as Rs.11,84,144/- instead of Rs.20,67,232/-. He drew my attention to the copy of ledger account of Kanwhizz in the books of the Appellants and also submitted that in the first round of litigation, even the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the amount received from Kanwhizz was Rs.11,84,144/-. The Appellant is eli