CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL New Delhi PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. III [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 69/TPS/PC/CGST/DSC/2020-21DATED 15.02.2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, New Delhi]

M/s Jangid Interior Decor Private Limited : Appellant A-357, Near Sangam Lodge, Mangal Bazar Road Hamdard, New Delhi 110062 Vs Principal Commissioner, CGST, New Delhi : Respondent

2^nd and 3^rd Floor, EIL Annexe Building, Plot No. 2-B, Bhikaji Cama Place, Delhi South New Delhi 110066 APPEARANCE:

Shri A.K. Batra Shri Ashok Batra and Ms. Sakshi Khanna, Chartered Accountants for the Appellant Shri Manoj Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM :

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

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

FINAL ORDER No. 50948/2025 Date of Hearing:28.04.2025 Date of Decision: 02.07.2025 HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA The present appeal has been filed by M/s Jangid Interior Decor Private Limited¹ to assail the Order-in-Original No. 69/TPS/PC/CGST/DSC/2020-21 dated 15.02.2021 wherein the Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.

3,17,97,060/- along with interest and imposed appropriate penalties.

1 The appellant

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a private limited company, having its registered office at A-357 E, Near Sangam Lodge, Mangal Bazar Road, Hamdard, New Delhi-110062. The appellant was registered with erstwhile Service Tax Commissionerate vide STC. AAACJ5516FST001 under various categories of taxable service. The appellant's primary business involves providing works contract services both as a principal contractor and as a sub- contractor. During the period in dispute, 01.10.2013 to 30.06.2017, the appellant acted as a sub-contractor, executing work orders received from its primary contractors, namely M/s. SMCC Construction India Ltd. and M/s. Takenaka India Pvt. Ltd.The Appellant's scope of work, as a sub-contractor, encompasses a comprehensive range of construction services for newly built structures. These services include earthwork, construction activities (such as laying foundation stones, erecting brick walls, and constructing columns, slabs, and floors), as well as specialized tasks like water proofing, tiling and stonework, carpentry and glasswork (including doors, windows, and reception counters), plumbing and sanitary installations, ceiling and plasterwork, partitioning (using glass, wood, or gypsum), drainage and PVC piping, stainless steel railings, aluminum fixtures, and painting. The appellant had duly discharged the applicable service tax on the service portion of works contracts, after availing 60% abatement as per Rule 2A(ii)(A) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. In addition to the above, the appellant also executed a work order awarded by Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Uttar Pradesh (RKUMP) for constructing Apna Bazar' at Saifai, Farrukhabad, U.P. The appellant availed exemption from service tax as per entry no. 12/12A of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as the activity was for the benefit of agriculturists.An audit was conducted by the Department whereby it was noticed that the appellant was availing abatement @60% under Rule 2A of Valuation Rules and claiming exemption from service tax vide entry 12/12A of the Notification No. 25/2012- ST dated 20.06.2012 in respect of above referred contracts. The Department alleged that the services rendered by the appellant, as sub-contractor are not covered in 'original works' but are in nature of completion and finishing services. Therefore, the department proposed the differential demand by allowing the benefit of abatement of 30% instead of 60%. The Department also alleged that the works contract services rendered by the appellant to RKUMP are not exempt from service tax. The Department was of the view that RKUMP is not a Governmental Authority, and the activities carried out by the appellant are co