CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. 3 SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50771 OF 2021 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No.01/COMMR/ST/UJN/2020-21 dated 07.01.2021 passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Ujjain]

M/s. Pappu Construction Appellant

03-Chauhan Bhawan Compound, Vikhroli West, Mumbai-400083 Vs.

Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Respondent Ujjain Commissionerate, 29, Bharatpuri Administrative Area, Ujjain-456010 (M.P.)

Appearance:

Present for the Appellant : Shri Z.U. Alvi, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri Shashank Yadav, Authorised Representative CORAM:

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

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

Date of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date of Decision: 16.03.2026 Final Order No.50359/2026 HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA The present appeal has been filed by M/s. Pappu Construction.1 against the Order-in-Original No. 01/COMMR/ST/UJN/2020-21 dated 07.01.2021 passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, 1. the Appellant Ujjain, wherein the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.2,83,436/- was confirmed. Penalty of Rs.5,000/- under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 was also imposed.

2. The brief facts are that the Appellant was engaged in providing mining services to Madhya Pradesh State Mining Corporation Ltd. They were neither registered nor paying service tax to the Department. An investigation was initiated against the Appellant by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence², Regional Unit, Indore. Subsequent to the completion of the enquiry, DGCEI issued a Show Cause Notice dated 03.10.2012 to the Appellant demanding service tax of Rs. 68,63,931/- along with interest and proposed penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period 01.06.2007 to 31.03.2011. The Show Cause Notice dated 03.10.2012 was adjudicated by the Commissioner, Indore vide Order-in-Original dated 07.07.2014 wherein the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.61,85,787/- alongwith interest and penalties was confirmed by invoking the extended period under proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the above Order in Original dated 07.07.2014, the Appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal, which vide Final Order No. 51586/2019 dated 14.11.2019, partially allowed the appeal by way of remand. In this remand order, the Tribunal upheld the demand for the normal period which was mentioned as one year, while setting aside the demand for the extended period. The Commissioner, while following the remand order of the Tribunal vide Order-in-Original dated 07.01.2021, extended the cum-tax value

2. DGCE benefit and confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,83,436/-along with interest and penalty for the normal period (01.10.2010 to 31.03.2011) which was 18 months from the relevant date. Aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Original dated 07.01.2021, the Appellant has filed this appeal again before the Tribunal on the ground that impugned order is beyond the scope of and rather contrary to the terms of Tribunal's Remand Order.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner was bound by the Tribunal's Order of Remand and could not go beyond the scope of remand and accordingly the demand, if any, for only one year period from the date of notice was to be determined. He contended that the Show Cause Notice was originally issued on 03.10.2012 for the period June 2007 to 31.03.2011. Thus, the Show Cause Notice period's outer limit ended on 31.03.2011, and as per Section-73(6), the relevant date i.e. date of filing of six-monthly return for the six month period ending on 31.03.2011 (01.10.2010 to 31.03.2011) would have been 25.04.2011. He further stated that one year period as laid down in Tribunal's Remand Order for issuance of Show Cause Notice for the Show Cause Notice period ending 31.03.2011 would have been 26.04.2011. He stated that since the Show Cause Notice was issued on 03.10.2012, which was clearly beyond one year limi