CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI.

PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO.III Service Tax Appeal No.52788 of 2019 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.BHO-EXCUS-001-APP-122-19-20 dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), GST, Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal (M.P.)]

M/s.Global Services, Appellant (Prop. Naveen Kumar Sahu), HIG -44, Bharhut Nagar, Satna (M.P.)-485 001.

VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent & CGST, Jabalpur, Napier Town, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh-485 001.

APPEARANCE:

None for the appellant.

Shri Rakesh Kumar , Authorised Representative for the respondent.

CORAM:

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

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

FINAL ORDER NO. 50281/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 20.01.2026 DATE OF DECISION:19.02.2026 BINU TAMTA:

1. M/s Global Services, The Appellant is engaged in providing services in the nature of maintenance or repair to various clients including M/s. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., LGEIL as „Authorised Service Centre‟ through Agreement for Exclusive Service Centre, ESC thereby attending „Warranty Services‟ for home appliances. On the basis of information received from the Income Tax

Department, especially Form 26-AS, it was revealed that appellant had received huge amount on account of providing declared services but have not paid service tax due thereon. As per the Returns, the appellant had discharged the service tax liability @50% of the schedule rate in terms of the provisions of Entry No.9 of Notification No. 30/2012–ST dated June 30, 2012. During the financial year 2014–15 to 2016–17, the appellant received a sum of Rs.50,96,302/-. Show cause notice dated July 13, 2018 was issued to the appellant raising the demand of Rs.6,21,602/- towards service tax liability by invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest, late fee and penalty under Section 78. The Adjudicating Authority perused the various clauses of the agreement between the appellant and LGEIL and also the definition of „Works Contract Service‟ and concluded that the service provided by the appellant does not come under reverse charge mechanism and, therefore, liable to pay service tax on 100% of taxable value. The appellant was also held liable to pay interest on the service tax not paid by them and penalty under Section 77 and 78. The appeal filed by the appellant has been rejected by the impugned order, BHO-EXCUS-001-APP-122-19-20 dated 17.07.2019

2. The present appeal has been filed on November 27, 2019 with delay of 30 days, however, the same has been condoned even in the absence of the appellant. Despite last opportunity having been granted, the appellant has not appeared and hence we are constrained to hear the present appeal on perusal of the appeal memo and after hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue.

3. The basic case of the appellant seems to be that they had executed works contract service to LGEIL for which they had collected and paid service tax under reverse charge mechanism on 50% value of service in terms of Notification No.30/2012. To examine the contention of the appellant, we may refer to the relevant provisions of the said notification, as under:-

As per Notification No.30/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012 following service come under reverse charge mechanism:-

TABLE

4. In clear terms, the notification provides that in execution of works contract services both service provider and recipient are liable to pay 50% of service tax liability. The term „works contract‟ is covered under „declared service‟ as enumerated in Section 66E of the Act and defined in Section 65B(54). Section 66E(h) and Section 65B(54) reads as follows:-

“Section 66E: Declared Services “The following shall constitute declared services, namely……..

(h) Service portion in the execution of a works contract.”

Section 65B(54) defines “Works Contract” as “Works Contract” means a contract wherein transfer of property in goods invo