CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL New Delhi PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. 3 [Arising out of OIA No. 15-ST-DLH-2020 dated 02.03.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods & Service Tax, New Delhi]

Commissioner, CGST, East Delhi : Appellant C. R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 Vs Svam Software Limited : Respondent S-524, 401, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 APPEARANCE:

Shri Aejaz Ahmad, Authorized Representative for the Appellant None for the Respondent CORAM :

HON’BLE MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER No. 50056/2026 Date of Hearing:10.11.2025 Date of Decision:13.01.2026 HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA The present appeal has been filed by the Department against the Order-in-Appeal No. 15-ST-DLH-2020 dated 02.03.2020 who allowed the party’s appeal partly on merits and time bar.

2. M/s SVAM Software Limited¹ was engaged primarily in information technology software development, trading of software and hardware, and providing services primarily under the category of "Management or Business Consultant's Service" and "Business Auxiliary Services”. The company was registered under the Service Tax Department with ATC No. AAACS0292BST001 dated 13/07/2006.

1 the respondent They obtained input service invoices from companies such as M/s Macro Infotech, M/s Campari Fiscal Service Pvt. Ltd., and M/s GEEFCEE Infosys, all located at the same address 13/34, WEA, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Further, services were also procured from M/s Software Technology Group International Ltd. (STG), Gurugram. The inputs procured indicated the nature and description of services which were provided by the companies floated by Shri Tarun Goyal. Income tax investigations revealed that Shri Goyal had floated about 124 private limited companies and firms with common addresses, none of which had substantive business activities. These companies were mainly conduits for generating bogus invoices with fictitious bank accounts and employees acting as proxies for directors. The Income Tax department found that the service tax charged on these invoices was neither deposited nor remitted to the Government. The respondent had availed CENVAT credit on these input service invoices, which subsequently turned out to be fraudulent, as was established by the Income Tax Department during their investigations which revealed that the companies issuing the input invoices to respondent were among the 124 fictitious firms floated by Shri Tarun Goyal. The respondent was unable to prove the genuineness of the input services or the payment of service tax to the Government. Additionally, manipulation of ledger entries was found where invoices were recorded before their date of issue, suggesting deliberate falsification. A Show Cause Notice No. 173/AE/Gr-5/2011- 12 dated 20.04.2012 was issued for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09 to respondent demanding recovery of CENVAT credit of 79,72,189/-

along with interest and penalties. The Additional Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 22/PA/ADC/GST/DE/2018-19 dated 26.12.2018 confirmed the entire demand of 79,72,189/-, along with interest, and imposed penalties of 79,72,189/- under Section 78 and 10,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal partly on merits and held the demand for 20,07,497/- relating to the period 01.04.2006 to 30.09.2006 as time barred, setting aside the demand for that period. Aggrieved by the said order, the Department has filled the present appeal before CESTAT.

3. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent. The case was listed on three occasions viz., on 23.05.2025 wherein the Division Bench ordered as follows:-

“None is present for the Respondent. The appeal has been listed for the first time. Notice of hearing though stands delivered on the respondent. However, presence be awaited for July 23, 2025.”

The case