CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Service Tax Appeal No. 55667 of 2014 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. LUD-EXCUS-000-APP-200-14-15 dated

08.08.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh]

M/s Srishti Interiors ……Appellant

342-A, Shastri Nagar, Opp. B.R. Modern School, Lawrence Road, Amritsar, Punjab-143001 VERSUS Commissioner of Service Tax, Ludhiana ……Respondent GST Bhawan, F-Block, Rish Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab-141001 APPEARANCE:

Shri Sudeep Singh Bhangoo, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Narinder Singh, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 60620/2025 DATE OF HEARING: 04.03.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 23.06.2025 S.S.GARG:

The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 08.08.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has given partial relief to the appellant and has dropped the penalty under Section 76 but confirmed the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation.

2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that that the appellant had rendered services to the Airport Authority of India, Amritsar, the Airport Authority India, Jaipur, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, Municipal Council, Mohali, Sainik Guest House, Amritsar, Improvement Trust, Amritsar, Badminton Hall, Nawanshahar, Punjab Police Housing Corporation, Punjabi University, National Science Centre, Amritsar, Superintendent Engineer (Galiara Project), Power Grid Corporation of India, Mohan International Builders, Mayor World School and Midas etc., but they did not pay the Service Tax on the services provided under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Services taxable under Section 65 (105)(zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994(hereinafter referred to as the Act). A show cause notice dated 20.04.11 was issued to the appellant proposing recovery of service tax amounting to Rs. 42,37,267/- (including cesses) under Section 73 of the Act by invoking extended period of limitation and appropriation of amount of service tax of Rs. 36,85,924/- already deposited by them, charging/recovery of interest under Section 75 of the Act, imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. The adjudicating authority vide impugned order confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 42,37,267/ under Section 73(1) of the Act and appropriated the amount of service tax already deposited by the appellant, ordered charging and recovery of interest under Section 75 of the Act, imposed penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act on the appellant as detailed in the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner, who has substantially confirmed the demand but dropped the penalty under Section 76. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submits that the present case is the case of delay in deposit of the service tax due to reasonable cause covered by Section 73(3) of the Act not warranting issuance of any show cause notice for the reason that most of the period, the proprietor remained hospitalized after meeting with a severe car accident as such the benefit of these circumstances ought to have been given and penalty ought not to have been imposed under any of the Section or the Act. He further submits that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 80 corresponding to the tax already paid along with interest by the appellant before the issuance of show cause notice merits to be extended. He further submits that for the period 2007-08 onwards the amount in question has been shown in the boo