##PAGE1##

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA

REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 1 Service Tax Appeal No. 396 of 2012

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.129/BOL/2012 dated 16.05.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata)

M/s Mondal Construction , : Appellant B-4/22, Milan Pally, Kururiadanga, Vill & Post-Amrai, Dist-

Burdwan, Durgapur-713203 (W.B.)

VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs Excise, Kolkata : Respondent

180 Santipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata-700107.

APPEARANCE:

Shri Amit Kumar, Advocate 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. 75470/ 2026

DATE OF HEARING :09.03.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 30.03.2026

Order : [Per Shri Ashok Jindal]

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order.

2. The facts of the case are that during the course of investigation conducted by the Department it was found that as per the Form 26 As the appellant has received large amount of money from their client M/s. Durgapur Steel Plant (DSP) for providing services against work order for the period 2004-05 to 2008-09 for which appellant has not paid Service Tax. Therefore, appellant was asked to file copies of balance sheet and sample copy of invoices for the impugned period and for scrutiny of the document provided by the appellant, department found that the appellant provided taxable services

2 Appeal No.: ST/396/2012-DB

amounting to Rs. 3,78,590/- for the period 2004-05, Rs. 4,41,511/- for the FY 2005-06,Rs. 15,99,917/- for the FY 2006-07, Rs. 15,38,088/- for the FY 2007- 08 and Rs. 61,22,733/- for the FY 2008-09. It was also found that after providing taxable services since the year 2004, the appellant neither declared the full facts in ST -3 returns nor paid full amount of service tax. Thus a notice was issued to the appellant proposing demand of service tax alongwith interest

and penalties was also proposed.

3. The matter was adjudicated and the Adjudicating Authority held that appellant is liable to pay Service Tax amounting to Rs. 12,26,358/-

alongwith interest and penalties was also imposed.

4. The said order was challenged before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) on the ground that the value of exempted service are not deducted for the purpose of valuation of the taxable value of service and abatement as per Notification No. 12/2003 ST dated 20.06.2003 was not given despite, the appellant has produced necessary documents. It was also submitted that tree plantation and maintenance

of tree was considered as taxable services.

5. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) gave a benefit to the appellant in terms of CBEC circular No. 80/10/2004-ST dated 17/09/2004 holding that the repair and renovation and allied works of road in DSP township are exempted services. Further he held that the appellant was engaged in construction services i.e. renovation of allied works of roads in DSP Township and internal plumbing work and other allied works and asked to pay Service Tax from the

appellant.

3 Appeal No.: ST/396/2012-DB

6. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us.

7. The Ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that the demand of Service Tax has been paid under the category of Construction Services, Commercial and Industrial Construction Services and erection and commissioning services. Infact, the appellant has supplied the services alongwith material. In that circumstances, the activity undertaken by the appellant is appropriately classifiable under ‘works contract services’. As no demand has been raised against the appellant under works contract service therefore, demand of Service Tax is not sustainable against the appellant. In view of this the impugned

order be set aside.

8. Heard the parties. Perused the record.

9. We find that the appellant has produced the invoices of raw material used by the appellant for providing the above service whic