CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. I Service Tax Appeal No. 41567 of 2016 (Arising out of Order in Appeal No.250/2016 (STA-I), dated 26.04.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-I), Newry Towers, 2054/1, II Avenue, 12^th Main Road, Chennai 600 040)

M/s. Girilak …. Appellant Flat No.8, 1^st Floor, Kothari Complex 149/63, Rangarajapuram Main Road Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024 VERSUS Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent MHU Complex, No.692, Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai 600 035 APPEARANCE:

Mr. N. Viswanathan, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. Rajni Menon, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON’BLE MR. AJAYAN T.V, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER No.40032/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 18.09.2025 DATE OF DECISION:08.01.2026 Per Ajayan T.V.

The Appellant Girilak, is aggrieved by the Order in Appeal No.250/2016(STA-I) dated 26.04.2016 (impugned order) whereby the Appellate Authority has rejected the Appellant's appeal and upheld the OIO No.177/2011 dated 27.12.2011.

2. The relevant facts are that the Appellant is a registered service provider of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service. The Department, on verification of the documents produced by the Appellant as sought from them, was of the view that the appellant had undertaken the work of tiles laying, plumbing, carpentry, aluminium/wooden partitions, joinery works, carpet laying etc as per the drawings provided by their clients. The appellant had discharged service tax on 33% of the gross amount collected by them after availing abatement of 67% as provided under Notification No.15/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 and Notfn. No.01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. The appellant also intimated vide their letter dated 01.07.2009 that they had undertaken Interior works and allied civil, plumbing work on contract basis and had paid works contract tax in respect of the deemed sale of material used in the execution of the works contract in terms of the VAT provisions and that they had filed their ST-3 returns regularly. The Department was of the view that the Appellant was rendering completion and finishing services under “Commercial or Industrial Construction Service” and since service providers rendering only completion and finishing services are not eligible to avail abatement, the Department was of the opinion that the appellant was required to pay service tax on the whole amount realised by them from their customers. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant alleging wrongful availment of abatement with wilful intention to evade payment of duty, invoking extended period of limitation and demanding service tax quantified as Rs.21,67,704/- for the period from April 2005 to March 2010 along with applicable interest and proposal for imposition of penalties. After due process of law, the Adjudicator rejected the appellant’s contention that the appellant is not engaged solely in Finishing Services. After dropping a demand of Rs.8,72,423/- and finding that the appellant’s payment of service tax under works contract service for the period Nov.2007 to March 2009 to be in order, the Adjudicator revised the demand to Rs.12,96,281/- along with applicable interest, and upholding the invoking of extended period of limitation, imposed an equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appeal preferred by the Appellant came to be rejected vide the impugned order and thus the Appellant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order, is now in appeal before this Tribunal.

3. Shri. N. Viswanathan, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submitted that the Appellant was engaged in the work of tiles laying, plumbing, carpentry, aluminium/wooden partitions, joinery works, carpet laying etc., with his men and material and was discharging the applicable VAT on the deemed sale under the works contract in terms of the VAT Act. The appellant had registered