CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1 Service Tax Appeal No. 1467 of 2012 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.03/2012-ST dated 07.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Calicut.)

Georgy george Kottakappally House, Appellant(s)

Kunnumpuram, Kalpathy P.O., PALAKKAD – 678 003.

VERSUS The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax C. R. Building, Mannachira, Respondent(s)

Calicut – 673 001. APPEARANCE:

Shri M. Saravanan, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant.

Shri M. A. Jithendra, Asst. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 20209 /2026 DATE OF HEARING: 27.10.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 26.02.2026 PER: R. BHAGYA DEVI This appeal is filed by the appellant Shri Geogy George, PWD Contractor against Order-in-Original No. 3/2012-ST dated 07.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Calicut Commissionerate.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are the appellant is providing services under the category of Management, Maintenance or Repair Services, Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency and Works Contract Services. The Revenue noticed that the appellant had not discharged service tax on all the above services rendered by him, hence, notice was issued demanding service tax amount. The Commissioner in the impugned order held that the appellant was the contractor, hence, while undertaking contract works, he had to submit the list of the persons whom he had engaged for the contract work and the workmen were required to wear uniforms and display identity cards issued to them which clearly states that it is a labor contract only. Accordingly, it was held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax under the Manpower Recruitment Service Agency. With regard to the second issue, the services rendered by the appellant in respect of resurfacing, renovation, filling of potholes, laying new roads, widening of narrow roads, etc., to PWD/CPWD is held to be liable to service tax under the category of Management, Maintenance or Repair Service. Similarly demands were also confirmed on Works Contract Services and in all the above cases, demands were confirmed invoking the extended period of limitation and imposing Penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act 1994. Aggrieved by this order the appellant is in appeal before us.

3. The Learned Counsel at the outset submits that an amount of Rs.72,225/- confirmed under the Works Contract Services is not being contested, hence, the same is upheld. With regard to Management, Maintenance or Repair Services, it is submitted that the Government in Finance Act, 2012 inserted Section 97 a special provision for exemption from payment of service tax on the services related to Management, Maintenance or Repair of roads with retrospective effect, hence, the same cannot be sustained.

3.1 With regard to Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service, it is submitted that the work carried out by the appellant is Handling of cylinders, Loading/Unloading, Haulage, Cartage, Clearing Work etc., to Indian Oil Corporation (bottling plant) Cochin. As per the conditions of the contract, it is submitted that under the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970, one had to comply with all provisions as per the act and laws. It is submitted that as per Clause 21 of the tender document, the contractor had to perform the work assigned to him and thus, it is the question of completion of work assigned to him and not just supply of manpower. Further as per Clause 26(5), the contractor is responsible for ensuring the work is done as per the defined quality failing which payment will be withheld as per the agreement and the nature of work.

Relied on the following decisions:

➢ Akriti Construction Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner Central Ex.: Jaipur 2017 (7) GSTL 478.

➢ Ramesh Chandra Tiwari versus Commiss