CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. – III [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. DDN/EXCUS/000/APPL/34/2021-22 dated 28.01.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (Appeals), Dehradun]

M/s. R.K. Enterprises …Appellant

75-A, Friends Plaza, Rajpur Road, Dehradun - 248001 VERSUS Commissioner of CGST - Dehradun …Respondent CGST, E Block, Nehru Colony, Dehradun - 248001 APPEARANCE:

None for the Appellant Shri Rajeev Kapoor, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

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

HON’BLE MR. RAJEEV TANDON, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

DATE OF HEARING: 12.11.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 16.01.2026 FINAL ORDER NO. 50083/2026 RAJEEV TANDON The appellant, aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No.

DDN/EXCUS/000/APPL/34/2021-22 dated 28.01.2022 has preferred the present appeal. The appellant, a service tax assessee rendering taxable services of erection, commissioning and installation services was issued a show cause notice dated 23.12.2020 by the jurisdictional authority. Consequent upon audit of the appellant firm having been undertaken for the period April 2015 to June 2017, a short payment of service tax to the tune of Rs.5,52,927/- was detected. The show cause notice issued alleged that the appellant filed nil ST-3 returns for rendering of service towards erection commissioning and installation service while vide their balance sheet as well as per Form 26AS (for the year 2015-16) it was indicated that the appellant received an amount of Rs.10,03,850/- towards job charges/service during the said financial year. Further, on the basis of invoices issued during 2015-16, the department alleged rendering of taxable service to the tune of Rs.10,92,700/- by the appellant, during the year, charging a service tax amount of Rs.1,49,572/-.

2. It is the department’s case that rendering of erection commissioning and installation services was not prescribed under negative list in terms of Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994, nor exempted in terms of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, as amended and therefore the appellant was required to pay tax for the taxable service rendered. Similar allegations raised as a result of scrutiny of the Balance Sheet and Form 26 AS statement for the financial year 2014-15, also pointed out that the appellant had received a sum of Rs.12,35,876/- towards job charges, thereby disentitling them the availment of the benefit of SSI exemption of Rs.10 lakh per annum in the succeeding Financial Year 2015-16. The department therefore contended that the appellant had charged and collected an amount of Rs.1,49,572/- (aforestated) towards service tax from their clients and not deposited the said service tax with the department. The department further noticed that in respect of two invoices the appellant had charged service tax at the rate of 14%, thereby not charging Swach Bharat Cess at the rate of 0.5% ad valorem as prescribed vide Notification No. 21 and 22/2015-ST both dated

06.11.2025 and therefore there was a short levy of Swach Bharat Cess of Rs.1,138/- which was required to be paid.

3. As for the Financial Year 2016-17, the case of the department is that the appellant had classified their services under the category of Works Contract Service and had paid service tax under Partial Reverse Charge Mechanism (PRCM) on 50% amount of the net taxable value arrived at after claiming an abatement of 30% on the gross receipts in terms of Notification No. 26/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended read with Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. The authorities therefore contended that accordingly, the appellant had indicated gross receipts of Rs.22,10,729/- (on which tax was paid under PCRM on 50% taxable value arrived at after claiming 30% abatement), while as per the balance sheet figures, the same was recorded as Rs.26,03,352/- towards job charges i.e. the services provided by the appellant. The authorities further al