CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. 3 SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50662 OF 2021 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No.RPR/EXCUS/000/COM(AUDIT)/050/2020 dated

31.12.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Audit), CGST & Central Excise, Raipur]

Amar Chand Agrawal Appellant

151, Bansal Niwas, Samta Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492001 Vs.

The Commissioner (Audit), CGST & Central Respondent Excise, Raipur, Appearance:

Present for the Appellant : Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Chartered Accountant Present for the Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorised Representative CORAM:

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

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

Date of Hearing/Decision: 03.02.2026 Final Order No.50350/2026 HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA The present appeal has been filed by Amar Chand Agrawal¹ to assail the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2020 in respect of the Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2018. The issue in dispute is with respect to service tax demand from the appellant for the period 2014-

1. the Appellant

15 for taxable services viz., installation and construction service. Vide the impugned order, the demand of Rs.8,49,182/- was confirmed alongwith interest and penalty imposed.

2. The brief facts are that the appellant was engaged for construction of complex and works contract service. On scrutiny of the documents received from Income Tax department and the documents received from the appellant, the Department noted that the appellant had provided services in relation to construction. The services provided by the appellant appeared to be covered under construction of complex service and works contract service during the period 2014- 15. The appellant had received consideration for providing such services but had not paid any service tax on these taxable services. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2018 was issued to the appellant for the period 2013-15 under category of construction of complex services and works contract service. The said Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 31.12.2020 confirming the demand of Rs. 8.49 lakhs under section 73(1), along with interest and imposed equivalent penalty of Rs.8.49 lakhs- under section 78. Penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the order-in-

original, the appellant has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the difference of Rs.8,24,916/- and Rs.55,48,089/- for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively was part and parcel of the contracts, which were already treated as exempt by the Commissioner in the impugned order-in-original. He contended that no further demand of service tax could be made. Learned counsel further submitted that the Commissioner had rightly identified in para 10 of the impugned order that the appellant had received income from three parties viz., Municipal Corporation, Chhattisgarh State Public Health Engineering Department and Chhattisgarh Ispat Bhumi Limited. Further, learned counsel stated that in para 11 and 12, the impugned order has held that the services provided to Municipal Corporation and Chhattisgarh State Public Health Engineering Department are covered under mega exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. The Commissioner has further noted that there is a difference in the amount taken in Show Cause Notice which is as per Books of accounts and the Form 26AS.

3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the said differences were all related to the contracts of service for Municipal Corporation and Chattisgarh State Public Health Engineering Department. He submitted that for 2013-14, the parties PHE and Public Health Engineering2 department are one and the same. Thus, there was a net difference of Rs.8,33,868/-. Learned counsel stated that the difference of Rs.8,33,868/- was on account of less reporting in Form 26AS by the PHE department, as the payment to this extent was