IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA COURT No. 2 Service Tax Appeal No. 75495 of 2024 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.45/ST/Ayukta/2023 dated 29.12.2023 passed by the Pr. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Patna-I)

M/s Vimlesh Prasad Singh (302, AwadhKunj Apartment, KachhiTalab, Saristabad, Gardanibagh, Patna-800001)

Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of CGST, CX, Patna (Central Revenue Building (Annexe), Beer Chand Patel Path, Patna-800001)

Respondent APPEARANCE :

Shri Amit Kumar & Ms. Nayna Naskar, both Advocate, for the Appellant MS Suman, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 75236/2026 Date of Hearing :12^th February2026 Date of Decision: 12^th February 2026 PER R. MURALIDHAR The appellant was issued Show Cause Notice demanding Service Tax of Rs.8,52,02,651/-. The appellant appeared before the Adjudicating Authority and brought in the evidence about the activities taken up by them. After this, the Adjudicating Authority has dropped the demand to the extent of about Rs. 8.46 Crores and confirmed the demand of Rs. 5,91,883/- along with interest and penalty. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal.

2. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Show Cause Notice was issued on 22/10/2021 by invoking the extended period provisions. The entire confirmed demand of Rs. 5,91,883/- pertains to the period 2016-17, 2017-18 (upto June

2017). Therefore, the confirmed demand is time barred. He relies on the following case laws:-

a. Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur[2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC)]

b. Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company V. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-1995 Supp (3) SCC 462= 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.).

c. Cosmic Dye Chemical V. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [(1995) 6 SCC 117]

d. Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company V. CCE [1995 (78) E.L.T.

401 (S.C)].

e. Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-[(2005) 7 SCC 749= 2005 (188) E.L.T. 149 (S.C.), f. Collector of Central Excise v. H.M.M. Ltd.-1995 Supp (3)

SCC 322=1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.), g. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. V. Commissioner of Customs reported in (2001) 4 SCC 593, at page 619= 2001 (128)

E.L.T. 21 (S.C), h. Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. Collector 1994 (74) ELT 9 (SC), i. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-IV V. Damnet Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (216) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)

3. Accordingly, he prays that the appeal may be allowed.

4. The Learned AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that it is clearly recorded in the Show Cause Notice that the appellant was called in to submit the details of Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account, Form 26AS, copy of Agreement, Copy of Invoices, Bank Statement and Income Tax Returns. But the appellant failed to respond to the same. They also failed to respond to the summons issued to them on several occasions. She submits that inspite of such tactics adopted by the appellant, the Adjudicating Authority has followed the principles of natural justice. He has gone through the documentary evidence placed before him and has given a detailed findings at Para 15. After having gone through the agreements, he came to conclusion about dropping of the major portion of the demand. She draws my attention to Para 16 of the OIO wherein, it has been clearly held that in case of one client WAPCOS, they have treated the work as taxable under the Service Tax law and they have paid Service Tax on their portion under RCM. The service tax portion of the noticee has been collected by the noticee(present appellant). Only on account of this specific documentary evidence, the Adjudicating authority has confirmed the present demand of Rs. 5,91,883/- along with interest and penalty.

5. She submits that the above factual details shows that the appellant has indulged in suppression by not disclosing the facts. This amount of Service Tax is paid by the client has still not been r