CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH : AHMEDABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 2 [Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No AHM-EXCUS-002-APP-28-2022-23 dated 26.08.2022 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-AHMEDABAD-I]

Patel Labour Contractors Pvt Limited …. Appellant

5/99 Sundar Nagar Flat Nr Naranpura Char Rasta Naranpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat -380013 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-1 .... Respondent Central Excise Bhavan, Nr. Panjrapole & Polytechnic, Ambavadi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat -380015 APPEARANCE :

Shri Bishan R. Shah, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri M P Solanki Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue.

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. AJAYA KRISHNA VISHVESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

DATE OF HEARING : 28.10.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 12.01.2026 FINAL ORDER NO. 10008/2026 DR. AJAYA KRISHNA VISHVESHA :

This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 26.08.2022 passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) through which he upheld the Order-in-Original passed by Deputy Commissioner, GST, Division -VII, Ahmedabad North and rejected the appeal.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s. Patel Labour Contractors Pvt. Limited were holding service tax registration. The service tax department conducted audit during 2005-06 to 2009-10 of the appellant and they found that appellant have received amount from their clients for providing services but not declared it in their ST-3 returns filed during the material time. Therefore, Show Cause Notice dated 19.05.2011 was issued to the appellant demanding Service Tax of Rs. 70,21,924/-. The Commissioner Service Tax, Ahmedabad vide order dated 28.09.2012 confirmed demand of Service Tax amounting to RS. 70,21,924/- for the period from 2005-06 to 2009-10 under the provisions of Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and ordered to recover it along with interest as well as imposed penalty under section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2.1 The appellant feeling aggrieved preferred appeal before CESTAT, Ahmedabad. The Tribunal, vide Order dated 14.10.2013, directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Accordingly, the appellant deposited Rs. 7,10,000/- and intimated to the department vide their letter received in the department on 17.12.2013. Thereafter, the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 19.05.2021 in Service Tax Appeal No. 10098 of 2013, arising out of Order-in-Original dated 28.09.2012 passed by Commissioner of ST, Ahmedabad, set aside the order on the ground of being time barred. Consequently, the appellant filed refund claim for Rs. 7,10,000/- along with interest of Rs. 3,15,051/-. The appellant filed refund claim on the ground that pre-deposit amounting to Rs. 7,10,000/- made by them in view of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is admissible to them. The learned Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that in the instant case, the appellant has deposited Rs. 7,10,000/- in the year 2013 which is prior to 2014 and therefore, the provision of Section 35FF before 2014 along apply which discernibly mandates the payment of interest only if there was delay beyond three months from the receipt of the order. Feeling aggrieved from the Order-in-Original passed by learned Deputy Commissioner, the appellant preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) and learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 26.08.2022, rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved from this impugned order, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.

3. Learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant, at the outset submits that the issue is no more res-integra and is settled by various judgments. He submits that in the case of Sandvik Asia Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. reported in 2006 (1) TMI 55 – Supreme Court, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that wherever any demand of duty has not been paid by any assessee at the appropriate rate and date, the same attracts c