CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Service Tax Appeal No. 60277 of 2016 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. JAL-EXCUS-000-COM-016-15-16 dated

22.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner of CE & ST, Jalandhar, Hqrs at Ludhiana]

Commissioner of Central Excise, ……Appellant Jalandhar Hqrs at GST Bhawan, F Block, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana 141001 VERSUS Concord Hospitality (P) Ltd ……Respondent Airport Road, Amritsar 143001 APPEARANCE:

Present for the Appellant: Shri Anurag Kumar and Shri Goverdhan Dass Bansal, Authorized Representatives Present for the Respondent: Shri Gautam Chugh, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE Mr. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 60035/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 08.01.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 08.01.2026 S. S. GARG:

The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana, whereby, the learned Commissioner has dropped the proceedings initiated against the respondent.

2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the respondent is registered with the department vide Registration No. AACCC7770NST001 for payment of Service Tax under the categories of Mandap Keeper / Rent-a cab Scheme operator service/ Health Club & Fitness centre service/ Dry Cleaning Service/ GTA/ BAS/ Internet cafe/ Renting of Immoveable property service/ Restaurant Service/ Accommodation in Hotels, Inn, Guest House, club or camp site etc.

service.

2.2 During the audit of the respondent, it was observed that the respondent got themselves registered with the department on 23.07.2008 for providing the services under Mandap Keeper Services and later, on 15.03.2012, the other services namely Rent-a cab Scheme operator service/ Health Club & Fitness centre service/ Dry Cleaning Service/ GTA/BAS/ Internet cafe/ Renting of Immoveable property service/ Restaurant Service/Accommodation in Hotels, Inn, Guest House, club or camp site etc, service were also got added in the registration certificate.

2.3 The respondent filed the first ST-3 return for the period April, 2008 to Sep, 2008 on 27.10.2008 showing an opening balance of Rs. 1,18,92,701/- in their Cenvat credit account and had also availed Cenvat credit on input services amounting to Rs. 15,00,669/- during this period and in the subsequent ST-3 returns filed from time to time, they showed the credit availed on input services as Rs. 20,92,893/- during Oct, 2008 to March, 2009; Rs. 5,91,091/- during the year 2009-10; Rs. 83,333/- during 2010-11 and Rs. 35,923/-

during the year 2011-12 (upto Dec, 2011); whereas, in all the ST-3 returns filed for the period from April, 2008 to Dec., 2011, the value of output services has been shown as NIL and it appears that the respondent started providing the output services during the month of January, 2012. On scrutiny of the copies of invoices, it was observed that the respondent has taken the credit on input service which they are not entitled to as per the Cenvat Credit Rules. On these allegations, a show cause notice dated 23.10.2013 was issued covering the period April, 2008 to December, 2011 proposing to recover the wrongly recovered cenvat credit of Rs. 1,61,96,610/- along with interest by invoking the extended period of limitation; the notice also proposed penal action under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. After following the due process, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions of respondent and the department dropped the demand. Hence, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.

3. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record.

4. Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue submits that the impugned order dropped the demand of wrongly availed Cenvat credit is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submits that mainly there are two grounds on the basis of which th