IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 1 Service Tax Appeal No. 76246 of 2014 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 02/ST/ADJ/COMMR/DIB/14-15 dated 11.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Dibrugarh, Milan Nagar, Lane “F”, P.O.: C.R. Building, Dibrugarh – 786 003, Assam)

M/s. Rigtech Power : Appellant M.R. Road, Naliapool, District: Dibrugarh, Dibrugarh – 786 001, Assam VERSUS Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, : Respondent Milan Nagar, Lane “F”, P.O.: C.R. Building, Dibrugarh – 786 003, Assam APPEARANCE:

Shri N.K. Chowdhury, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri S.K. Dikshit, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 75188 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING: 27.01.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 06.02.2026 ORDER: [PER SHRI ASHOK JINDAL]

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of Service Tax of Rs.75,10,232/- (inclusive of cesses), along with interest and penalties, has been confirmed against the appellant for the period from December, 2008 to March, 2012 by invoking the extended period of limitation.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a Proprietorship Concern and was registered with the Service Tax Authorities having Registration No. AAUPL4410BST001 for providing taxable services under the category of ‘mining service’. The appellant was providing mining service to M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited [ONGC], Ankleshwar Assets/Cauvery Asset, M/s. Varun Industries Ltd., Mumbai and M/s. Sitaram Energy and Logistics Limited, Kolkata as a sub-contractor. During the impugned period, the appellant had paid the Service Tax on the amount received from ONGC, but did not pay Service Tax on the amounts received from M/s. Varun Industries Limited, Mumbai and M/s. Sitaram Agency & Logistics Limited, Kolkata, on the ground that they were not required to pay Service Tax since the principal contractors had discharged the Service Tax liability.

3. Investigation was conducted by officers of the Hqtrs. Anti-Evasion Unit, Central Excise and Service Tax, Dibrugarh Commissionerate, during the course of which it was found that the appellant had not paid any Service Tax against the amounts received from M/s. Varun Industries Limited, Mumbai and M/s. Sitaram Agency & Logistics Limited, Kolkata which had resulted in non-payment of Service Tax of Rs.75,10,232/- (inclusive of cesses).

3.1. On the basis of the above, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 07.01.2014 demanding Service Tax of Rs.75,10,232/- (inclusive of cesses), along with interest and penalties, for the period from December, 2008 to March, 2012 by invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, on the allegation that the appellant had wilfully suppressed the material facts from the Department with the intention to evade payment of Service Tax.

4. The appellant replied to the above notice taking the stand that they were not liable for payment of any Service Tax as a sub-contractor since the Principal Contractors had discharged the tax liability; that since the appellant was acting as an agent of the Principal Contractors and in face, services in relation to mining were being rendered by the principal contractors, the appellant would not fall within the ambit of 65(105)(zzzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the said services rendered by them.

5. The matter was adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 11.06.2014 wherein the demand of Service Tax, as proposed in the Notice, was confirmed against the appellant, along with interest thereon. The ld. adjudicating authority also imposed penalties on the appellant under Sections 77 and 78 of the Act.

5.1. Against the said order, the appellant is before us.

6. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the impugned demand on the ground of li