IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 1 Service Tax Appeal No. 75522 of 2018 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 10/COMMR/CGST & CX/KOL/NORTH/2017-18 dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and C.X., Kolkata North, G.S.T. Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107)

M/s. Forum Retail Private Limited : Appellant

4/1, Red Cross Place, Kolkata – 700 001 VERSUS Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise : Respondent Kolkata North Commissionerate, G.S.T. Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107 APPEARANCE:

Shri Tarun Chatterjee, Advocate, Ms. Sneha Das, Consultant For the Appellant Shri S. Dutta, Authorized Representative, For the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 75126 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING / DECISION: 21.01.2026 ORDER: [PER SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN]

The present appeal has been filed against the demands confirmed in the impugned Order-in-Original No. 10/COMMR/CGST & CX/KOL/NORTH/2017-18 dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and C.X., Kolkata North, G.S.T. Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata.

2. The facts of the case are that during the course of scrutiny of Balance Sheet, Ledger (Shop, Office, Advance), ST-3 returns and corresponding payment challans of the appellant, the audit officers observed that there were short payments of Service Tax for the period from 2011-12 to 2015-16. It was also observed that the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit beyond the period of one year in violation of Rule 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.21/2014-

CE(NT), dated 11.07.2014.

2.1. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 20.04.2017 was issued to the appellant demanding Service Tax allegedly short paid, along with interest and penalty. The notice also proposed disallowance of CENVAT Credit availed in violation of Rule 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

2.2. After due process, the said notice was adjudicated vide the impugned order wherein the ld. adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand on account of short payment of Service Tax and disallowed CENVAT Credit, to the extent as mentioned in the said impugned order.

2.3. Aggrieved by the confirmation of the demand of Service Tax and disallowance of CENVAT Credit, along with interest and penalty thereon, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

3. Regarding the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.9,08,617/- confirmed in the impugned order on import of service under ‘Reverse Charge Mechanism’ for the period 2011-12, the appellant’s submission is that the demand is barred by limitation. They point out that the Show Cause Notice in this case was issued on 20.04.2017 by invoking the larger period of limitation. It is submitted by the appellant that they were regular in furnishing of returns and payment of tax during the impugned period and therefore, demand beyond the normal period is not sustainable. Furthermore, the appellant also argues that as the demand is made under Reverse Charge Mechanism, if at all such amount is payable, the appellant shall be entitled to take CENVAT Credit on the very same amount on the very same day.

3.1. The appellant further submits that in view of a catena of decisions, it is a settled legal position that the allegation of suppression and demand beyond the normal period is not sustainable in case of the demand under Reverse Charge Mechanism. They plead that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. Versus Commissioner [ 2017 (7) G.S.T.L. J35 (S.C.)]; furthermore, that this Bench in appellant’s own group company case, on the very same issue, has allowed the appeal on limitation by way of Final Order No. 75630 / 2024 dated 02.04.2024.

4. The appellant’s submission on the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.73,63,722/- on the adv