CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. 3 SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50180 of 2019 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.468(SM)ST/JPR/2018 dated 17.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Central Goods and Service Tax, Jaipur]

M/s. Rajasthan Housing Board, …Appellant Division-X, Through Resident Engineer, Central Lab Building,Sector-8, Haldi Ghati Gate, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302 033.

Versus Additional Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate-Jaipur, …Respondent NCR Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302 015.

Appearance:

Shri B.L. Narasimhan and Ms. Srishti Yadav, Advocates for the appellant.

Shri V.K. Jain, Authorised Representative for the respondent.

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: 09.03.2026 FINAL ORDER NO. 50319/2026 BINU TAMTA:

1. M/s Rajasthan Housing Board, The Appellant has assailed the Order-in-Appeal No.468(SM)ST/JPR/2018 dated 17.10.2018 confirming the demand of CENVAT Credit on the appellant invoking the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, along with interest and penalty.

2. The facts as stated by the appellant are as under:-

2.1. The appellant is a State instrumentality set-up with the intent to provide measures for dealing with housing accommodation in the State of Rajasthan. In furtherance of its objective, the appellant introduced various housing schemes for offering affordable housing to low and medium income groups. Such housing scheme was in operation during the relevant period.

2.2. For undertaking the construction of houses under one such housing schemes, the appellant awarded Work Order No.306 dated 20.08.2006 to M/s. Crescent Construction Company, Mumbai (Contractor') for construction of 2976 flats at Sanganer, Jaipur. The construction work for this project started in 2006-07 and continued till 2015.

2.3 Out of 2976 flats, the construction and handing over of possession of 332 flats was complete prior to 01.07.2012 Service Tax on the construction of these 332 flats was paid by the Contractor in the relevant period (December 2013 to March 2014) pursuant to which the appellant availed Cenvat Credit of Service Tax charged by the Contractor (also in the relevant period) on the supply of construction services to the appellant prior to 01.07.2012.

2.4 For these 332 flats, the appellant has paid service tax on its output service as and when the flats were sold and amounts were realized from flat buyers. The date of availment of Cenvat Credit in dispute are as follows:-

3. On the basis of an audit, show cause notice dated February 14, 2017 was issued proposing demand of credit of Rs.52,21,100/- on the ground that the appellant could not have availed the credit of tax paid on inward services received prior to July 1, 2012, as the appellant was not discharging service tax on „construction of residential complex services‟ prior to July 1, 2012. Extended period of limitation was invoked on the allegation that had the audit not been conducted, facts of wrongful availment of credit would not have been unearthed. The demand was confirmed by order-in-original dated August 30, 2017. The appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the impugned order. Hence the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal.

4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case.

5. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, the learned Counsel for the appellant has restricted his arguments only on the point of limitation. He has submitted that the entire demand is barred by limitation as the period involved is from December 2013 to March 2014 and the show cause notice has been issued on February 14, 2017, which is beyond the normal period of 18 months and, therefore, the show cause notice should have been issued latest by November 10, 2015. Elaborating the ground of limitation, the learned Counsel submitted that the demand in the pr