##PAGE1##

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

NEW DELHI

PRINCIPAL BENCH-COURT NO. 3

SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 52385 OF 2019

[Arising out of Order in Original No. JAI-EXCUS-000-COM-19-19-2- dated

28.06.2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise,

Jaipur]

…….APPELLANT

SOHAN LAL MATHUR

B-3, Durga Path, Ambabari,

Vidhyadhar Nagar

Jaipur, Rajasthan

Vs.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST &

………RESPONDENT

CENTRAL EXCISE-JAIPUR

NCRB, Statue Circle, C-Scheme,

Jaipur

Appearance:

Shri Bipin Garg and Ms. J. Kainaat, Advocates for the Appellant

Ms. Jaya Kumari, Authorised Representative for the Respondent

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

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

FINAL ORDER NO. 50880 /2026

Date of Hearing : 08/05/2026

Date of Decision: 13/05/2026

ASHOK JINDAL

1. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for

demand of service tax under “works contract services” for the period

2008-09 to 2011-12 by issuance of the show cause notice dated

04.10.2013.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was registered as

the service provider under category of “Commercial or industrial

2

construction services” since 2004 and paying service tax under that

category from 16.06.2005. An audit was conducted on 28.07.2012,

11.08.2012 and 04.10.2012 for the period April, 2008 to March 2012

for records of the appellant and it was found that the appellant was

engaged in providing “construction services”. On the basis of scrutiny

of books of accounts, financial statements and other records

maintained by the appellant., the audit team was of the view that

service provided by the appellant falls under works contract service

and not “Commercial and Industrial Construction service. Therefore,

a show cause notice dated 04.10.2013 for invoking extended period

of limitation to demand service tax for the period 2008-09 to 2011-

12. The matter was adjudicated and demand of service tax was

confirmed against the appellant. Aggrieved from the said order, the

appellant is before us.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant

was registered since 2004 and maintained all the records and filing

their ST-3 returns regularly under construction services. Since

16.06.2005, the Commercial and Industrial Construction Services was

introduction and also was paying service tax under commercial and

industrial construction services by availment abatement under

Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006.

4. The Revenue never objected of paying service tax by the

appellant under construction and industrial construction services,

although the works contract service was introduced from 01.06.2007.

Periodical audit also took place and no objection was raised against

3

the appellant in that circumstances the whole of the demand raised

against the appellant is barred by limitation. He further submitted

that in their own case for the earlier periods show cause notice were

issued to the appellants demanding service tax under the category of

“Commercial and Industrial Construction Service” for the period 2004-

05 to 2007-08 on the basis of the departmental audit but this

Tribunal set aside the said demands, in that circumstances the

appellant was under bonafide belief that appropriate classification of

services is under “Commercial and Industrial Construction Service”

and entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006, therefore,

impugned demands are to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned authorized representative relied on

the audit report saying that the appropriate classification of the

appellant is “works contract service”.

6. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.

7. It is a case where the appellant is registered with the Revenue

under “Commercial Industrial Construction services” and discharging

their service tax under the said category availing the benefit of

Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 and filing their ST-3

returns regularly. It is also apparent from the records that for the

earlier period also the de