CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. II (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.NOI-EXCUS-001-APPL-465-23-24 dated 03/01/2024 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Goods & Services Tax, Noida)

M/s Balaji Construction, ….Appellant (Plot No.78, Khasra No.65, Mohani Enclave, Akbarpur Bharampur, Ghaziabad-201001)

VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise &

CGST, Noida ….Respondent (4^th Floor, C-232A/2 to 232A/3, Ircon Building Sector-48, Noida-201305)

APPEARANCE Shri Krishna Kant Dubey, Advocate for the Appellant Smt Chitra Srivastava, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO.70689/2025 DATE OF HEARING : 02 July, 2025 DATE OF DECISION : 02 July, 2025 SANJIV SRIVASTAVA:

This appeal is directed against order in appeal No NOI-

EXCUS-002-APP-465-23-24 dated 03.01.2024 of the Commissioner Central Goods & Service Tax (Appeals) NOIDA. By the impugned order following has been held.

“10. In view of the above, I set aside the orders passed by the Original Authority and allow the appeal of the department. I confirm the demand of Service Tax of Rs.7,20,190/- under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 from the respondent. I also impose the penalty of Rs.20,000/- under Section 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 for not filing proper ST-3 returns during the FY 2016- 17. I impose a penalty of Rs.7,20,190/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for not paying the above service tax amount by suppressing the: material facts from the department.”

2.1 Appellant is engaged in providing taxable service/ services under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 are registered under STC No. APTPM4972RSD001 under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2.2. During the course of verification and monitoring of third party date received from the Income Tax Department for the FY 2016-17 difference of Rs.48,01,266/- had been observed between Total Value of services from ITR/TDS data and Gross value of service provided under Service Tax Returns. During. the course of enquiry, the respondent was requested to submit the relevant documents/ 'information to clarify the said difference, but they failed to furnish requisite documents/ information to the department. Thus, it appeared that the respondent has short paid Service Tax of Rs.7,20,190/- by contravening the provisions of Section 67 read with Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2.3 A show cause notice dated 28.09.2021 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why:

(i) Service Tax amounting to Rs.720190/- (incl. Swachh Bharat Cess & Krishi Kalyan Cess (Rupees Seven lakh twenty thousand one hundred and ninety only) so deliberatively and willfully short paid by them during the period from April, 2016 to March, 2017, should not y be demanded and recovered from them under proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Act:

(ii) Interest, on the above amount of Service Tax, should not be demanded and recovered from them under the provisions of Section 75 of the Act;

(iii) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under the provisions of Section 78 of Finance Act 1994;

(iv) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(1)(c) of Finance Act 1994.

2.4 The Original Authority after examining the evidences provided by appellant, vide order in original No 120/DC/CGST/Div-V/GZB/2022-23 dated 10.10.2022 dropped the proceedings initiated by this show cause notice..

2.5 Aggrieved revenue filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) which has been allowed as per the impugned order.

2.6 Aggrieved appellant has filed this appeal.

3.1 I have heard Shri Krishna Kant Dubey, Advocate for the appellant and Ms Chitra Srivastava, Authorized Representative for the revenue.

4.1 I have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments.

4.2 Impugned order records the finding as follows:

8. I have carefully gone thro