CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL New Delhi PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. IV [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 877-878/CRM/ST/JDR/2018 dated 08.08.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise and Central Goods, Service Tax, Jodhpur]

Unmaid Electricals : Appellant

236, Subhash Marg, Masuria, Jodhpur Vs Commissioner of Central Goods, Service : Respondent Tax & Central Excise, Jodhpur G-105, New Industrial Area Basni Near Diesel Shed, Jodhpur-342003 APPEARANCE:

Shri Om. P. Agarwal, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri Aejaz Ahmad, Shri Anand Narayan, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM :

HON’BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

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

FINAL ORDER No. 50941/2025 Date of Hearing:17.04.2025 Date of Decision:27.06.2025 HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA The present appeal has been filed by M/s Unmaid Electricals¹ to assail the Order-in-Appeal No. 877-878/CRM/ST/JDR/2018 dated 08.08.2018 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the service tax of Rs. 5,83,365/- along with interest and imposed penalties.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in providing Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service & Work Contract Service to M/s Jodhpur Development Authority & Nagar Nigam, Jodhpur but was not paying applicable Service tax on the

1 The appellant amount received in lieu of providing such services namely electrification work. During the period 2005-06 to 2008-09,the appellant performed the work of fixing the poles, wiring the poles, fixing of street light and laying of cables. The appellant was neither registered under Service Tax nor did they pay any Service Tax. As the appellant was not registered, hence, the composition scheme was not available to them. The Department formed an opinion that as Form VAT-41 issued by Senior Account Officer Jodhpur i.e. awarder of work contract, revealed that they had deducted VAT @3%, whereas VAT is deducted only in the case of works contract, and the work done by the appellant was covered under the definition of Erection, Commissioning & Installation Service and Works Contract Service as defined under Section 65(105) (zzd) & 65 (105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 respectively. Therefore, the appellant appeared liable to pay Service tax at the appropriate rate prevalent at the relevant time. The appellant had not disclosed the material facts to the department either in letter form or in ST-3 returns. Further, the appellant had not furnished the details willingly to the department in spite of the fact that a number of letters issued to the appellant. Consequently, a Show Cause Notice dated 13.04.2010 was issued for the period 2005-06 to 2008-09 to the appellant demanding service tax of Rs. 22,03,499/- including cess along with interest and penalties. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2017 confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 12,87,880/- along with interest under Section 75 and penalty under Section 76 of the Act, penalty of Rs. 5,000/- u/s 77(2), penalty u/s 77(1)(a) and penalty of Rs. 12,87,880/- u/s 78 of the Act.The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Tax of only Rs. 5,83,365/- and set-aside the rest of demand along with interest and various penalties imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

3. Learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant submitted that demand was hit by limitation. He submitted that there were divergent views regarding the taxability of Works Contract Services and matter had been referred to different Larger Bench of the Tribunal. Learned counsel stated that the dispute was resolved by Supreme Court in the judgement in Larson & Turbo case in 2014. Hence, he contended that in such cases, the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade tax was not present. Therefore, the extended period was not invokable in view of decisions of the Tribunal. Learned counsel relied on the Tribunal