CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL New Delhi PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. 4 SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51033 OF 2021 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 152(SM) ST/JPR/2021dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise and CGST, Jaipur]

M/S AJMER VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LIMITED …APPELLANT AO-EA Cash, Vidyut Bhawan Panchsheel Nagar Makadwali Road, Ajmer Vs.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST & ……RESPONDENT CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR NCR Building, Statute Circule C-

Scheme Jaipur, Rajasthan-

305005 APPEARANCE:

Shri Kunal Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Shashank Yadav, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM :

HON’BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 50035 /2026 DATE OF HEARING: 15.10.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 07.01.2026 P.V. SUBBA RAO M/s. Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited¹ has filed this appeal to assail the Order dated 22.3.2021² passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in which he upheld the order dated 30.8.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner confirming demand of service tax of Rs. 1,04,68,524/- under section 73 (1) of

1. The appellant

2. Impugned order the Finance Act, 1994³ and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,46,852/-

under section 76 of the Act and rejected the appellant’s appeal.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative for the Revenue and perused the records.

The demand of service tax has been confirmed on three counts:

a) Demand of service tax under reverse charge basis on the amounts which the appellant had paid to the State Police Department for the security services provided by the police;

b) Service tax on vendor registration charges, tender cost, inspection charges and Board of Director Settlement fee; and c) Service tax on amounts recovered as penalty on non-

fulfilment of the conditions of the tender.

3. The appellant does not dispute paying the amounts to the state police or receiving the amounts towards (b) and (c) above but contends that it is not liable to pay service tax on these amounts. We find that for demands on these three issues for an earlier period were confirmed by the Commissioner and on appeal, this Tribunal, by Final Order No. 59900 of 2024 dated 26 November 2024 passed in Service Tax Appeal No. 52634 of 2018, set aside the demands.

Relevant portions of this order are reproduced below: “2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the provisions of technical inspection and clarification services. An audit was conducted for the period April 2011 to March 2016 and the Appellant was issued the SCN proposing to demand service tax of Rs.3,12,84,627/- along with interest and penalties. The demand was confirmed by way of impugned order. The details of the issues are as under:-

3. Act XXXXXXXXXXXXX

12. We find that the main contention pertains to demand of service tax of Rs. 2,43,67,998/- under support service. The said demand has been raised on the appellant under reverse charge mechanism as the period involved in this matter is from July 2012 and the demand has been raised against the appellant by invoking erstwhile under the provisions of Section 65 (104c) the Finance Act, 1994 readwith Section 65 (105) (zzzq) of the Finance Act. In fact from July,2012 onwards the negative list regime came into existance and the activity undertaken by the appellant if taxable, the demand can be raised under Section 65B (49) of the Act. The said provisions has not been invoked to demand service tax from the appellant. Moreover, for support services of business, the service tax is required to be paid by the service provider not by the service recipient and the appellant is before us is a service recipient, therefore, no demand can be raised in the hands of the service recipients under support services of business. In that circumstances, the recovery of the said amount if payable, cannot be levied on the appellant. Moreover, the issue whether reimbursement of salaries o