CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1 Service Tax Appeal No. 21743 of 2015 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.MLR-EXCUS-000-COM-MS-002- 15-16 dated 01.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Mangalore.)

M/s. Dix Engineering Project Services Pvt. Ltd.

Appellant(s)

NMC Complex, Beach Road, Panambur, Mangalore – 575 010.

VERSUS The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax

7th Floor, Trade Centre, Respondent(s)

Bunts Hostel Road, Mangalore – 575 003.

APPEARANCE:

Shri N. Anand, Advocate for the Appellant.

Shri Rajshekar. B. N.N, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 20606 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING: 19.01.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 06.05.2026 PER: R. BHAGYA DEVI This appeal is filed by the appellant M/s. Dix Engineering Project Services Pvt. Ltd. against Order-in-Original No.MLR- EXCUS-000-COM-MS-002-15-16 dated 01.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore.

2. Briefly the facts are that the Revenue on investigation and based on various records found that the appellant was rendering services under the category of ‘Works Contract Services’ and ‘Supply of Tangible Goods Services’ but was not discharging any service tax on these services; hence, notice was issued and the Commissioner in the impugned order confirmed the demand of service tax under the above categories and confirmed an amount of Rs.1,39,50,173/- under the category of ‘Works Contract Services’ and Rs.4,56,404/- under the category of ‘Supply of Tangible Goods Services’ along with interest and various penalties. In addition, an amount of Rs.5,31,33,963/- was also confirmed under the category of ‘Works Contract Services’ for services rendered as sub-contractor to the SEZ units. The impugned order also confirms an amount of Rs.14,24,728/- liable to be paid for the road construction services undertaken by the appellant for MRPL. The Commissioner also denied the cenvat credit amount of Rs.71,97,381/- claimed by the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant is in appeal before us.

3. The Learned Counsel submits that during the period of dispute, the appellant was predominantly executing composite works contracts in relation to setting-up of Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit as a sub-contractor and also executed road construction works. For the Financial Year 2008-2009 And 2009- 2010 self-assessed the value of taxable services and also disclosed non-taxable or exempted services such as road work etc. It is also submitted that for the financial years 2010-2011 and 2012-2013, the appellant was facing financial constraint and crisis on account of non-receipt of consideration by his customers and for the said reasons, they could not discharge service tax and could not file periodical returns. It is submitted that as a sub-contractor, they have rendered services to ONGC Mangalore Petro Chemicals Ltd. a SEZ unit and the construction/works contract services rendered within the SEZ unit as subcontractor is eligible and entitled for exemption from payment of service tax and therefore, the demand of Rs.5,31,33,963/- cannot be sustained. It is also submitted that during the period of dispute, the appellant was a sub-contractor with three main contractors namely (i) M/s. ANS Constructions Ltd., New Delhi, (ii) M/s. Vishal Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and (iii) M/s. IVRCL Infrastructures and Projects Ltd. for setting- up infrastructure within the Special Economic Zone unit. Further, it is submitted that the Development Commissioner, Mangalore SEZ vide letter dated 12.09.2009 certified that ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. is an approved unit in Mangalore SEZ.

Relied on the following decisions:

(a) CST v. Fedco Paints & Contracts, 2017 (3) GSTL 364 (Tri-Mum.)

maintained by Honorable Supreme Court in 2018 (10) GSTL J207 (SC).

(b) Rishabh Construction Co v. CCE&ST, (2024) 24 Centax 18