CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Service Tax Appeal No. 86234 of 2021 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 22/COM/SB-ME/2020-21 dated 19.04.2021 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Thane Rural Commissionerate]

Cemindia Projects Limited .… Appellant

9^th Floor, Prime Bay, Tower-B, Gate No.5, Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai 400 072.

Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, …. Respondent Thane Rural Utpad Shulk Bhavan, 4^th Floor, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051.

APPEARANCE:

Shri H.G. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Dhananjay Dahiwale, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 85331/2026 Date of Hearing: 16.02.2026 Date of Decision: 16.02.2026 PER: S.K. MOHANTY Heard both sides and examined the case records.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. Cemindia Projects Ltd. is engaged inter alia, in the activities of providing various taxable services, for which they got themselves registered with the jurisdictional Service Tax authorities. During the disputed period, the appellant had provided the services to their clients on turnkey basis. Since the contract entered between the appellant and their customers was a composite contract, involving both supply of goods as well as for execution of assigned tasks, they did not pay the service tax on provision of such taxable services inasmuch as the composite contract was not exigible to service tax. On perusal of the records maintained by the appellant, the department had observed that the services provided by them should be categorized under “Commercial or Industrial Construction Service”, on which the appellant is liable to pay service tax. Countering the argument placed by the department, the appellant had contended that the service should appropriately fall under the taxable category of Works Contract Service and not under Construction Service. However, without considering the submissions made by the appellant, the department had initiated show cause proceedings against the appellant, seeking for confirmation of service tax demand under the taxable category of Construction Service. The matter arising out of the show cause notice dated 21.04.2010 was adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Thane vide the impugned order dated 19.04.2021 in confirming the service tax demand of Rs.37,25,84,412/- along with interest and also imposed penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 19.04.2021, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The issue involved in the present appeal for consideration by the Tribunal is, whether can the demand of service tax be fastened on the appellant under the taxable category of Construction Service for the period 01.10.2004 to 30.09.2009, especially when the contract is a composite one involving both execution of the work and for supply of the equipment for carrying out the assigned work. We have examined the work orders issued by M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. and M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., etc., to the appellant for execution of the assigned tasks by them. Such agreements also provide that the appellant should procure the goods for use in the construction activities. Further, the impugned order at page 31, in paragraph 46.1 has also recorded the submissions of the appellant that for carrying out the construction activities, they shall supply the goods procured on payment of sales tax. However, without taking into consideration the submissions of the appellant that their case should fall under the taxable category of Works Contract Service, the original authority vide the impugned order has confirmed the adjudged demands under the category of Construction Service. The Works Contract Service brought into the