CUSTOMS, EXCI SE AND SERVI CE TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL HYDERABAD Division Bench – Court No. – I Service Tax Appeal No. 25344 of 2013 (Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No.23/2012 (V-I) ST dt.30.10.2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam)

M/ s Sheladia Rites (JV)

NHAI Enclave, Near Old Diary Farm Compound, ......Appellant Hanumantavaka, Visakhapatnam, AP – 530 040 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise &

Service Tax, Visakhapatnam - I I ……Respondent Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 530 035 Appearance:-

None for the Appellant.

Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, AR for the Respondent.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON'BLE MR. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FI NAL ORDER No. A/ 30078/ 2026 Date of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date of Decision: 06.02.2026 [Order per: ANGAD PRASAD]

M/s Sheladi Rites (JV) (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) are in appeal against OIA dt.30.10.2012, whereby, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demand of Rs.3,85,930/- along with interest under section

75 of the Finance Act, 1994 (impugned order).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants had entered into a contract with M/s National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for rendering Consulting Engineering Services in respect of laying of roads widening to 4/6 lanes and upgrading the existing 2 lane road including minor bridges, service roads and auxiliary works in the state of Andhra Pradesh. As per the contract, NHAI is responsible for making payment of any taxes, duties, fees, levies on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, NHAI had paid income tax (TDS) on behalf of the appellant but the appellants had not included the TDS amounts, which were paid by NHAI, while arriving at the taxable value.

Hence, SCN dt.08.04.2009 for the period April, 2007 to March, 2008 and SCN dt.08.10.2009 for the period April, 2008 to March, 2009 were issued demanding an amount of Rs.1,88,053/- along with interest under section 75 and penalties under section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants contested the SCNs and thereafter, the Original Adjudicating Authority, after taking into account the submissions made by both sides, confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalties as raised in the SCNs. The appellants preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who has placed reliance on the order of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur-I Vs Louis Berger International Inc. [2008 (9) TMI 144 – CESTAT New Delhi] and held that the demand of service tax on TDS portion during the material period, along with interest is legally sustainable on merits. He further relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Cosmos Detective & Security Services Vs CCE, Ahmedabad [2010 (19) STR 414 (Tri- Ahmd)] and waived the penalties under section 76 & 77 confirmed in the OIO. The appellants are against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals)

before this Tribunal.

3. Nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant. On perusal of records, we find that on last several occasions, the appellant was not present for hearing and accordingly, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merit. It is noted that learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted written submissions on 15.12.2025 in compliance with the order dt.04.12.2025. The appellant filed this appeal on the following grounds.

a) The OIA is erroneous, arbitrary and against the settled principles of law.

b) The adjudicating authority failed to appreciate that in the SCN dt.08.04.2009 proposing to levy service tax for the period 2007-08, the department has not invoked proviso to section 73(1), which is mandatory to issue SCN after one year from the relevant date specified in section 73.

c) Section 73(1) is not invokable as the present case is covered under section 73(3) of the Act.

d) The adjudicating authority failed to appreciate that section 73(3) deals with the situation where if an assessee, who has not paid service tax fully or who has not lev