##PAGE1##

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

NEW DELHI

PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO.2

Service Tax Appeal No. 52195 of 2024

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. JAI-EXCUS-000-COM-35-2023-24 dated

06.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Central Goods Service Tax and Central

Excise Jaipur]

R. J. B. Engineer & Construction Company : Appellant

5A, Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Jaipur

Vs

Commissioner of Central Excise & : Respondent

CGST-Jaipur

NCR Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan

APPEARANCE:

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

Shri Rohit Issar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent

CORAM :

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

FINAL ORDER No. 50952/2026

Date of Hearing:13.05.2026

Date of Decision:13.05.2026

ASHOK JINDAL

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein

the demand of service tax has been confirmed under „Works Contract

Service‟.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the

activity of construction, namely, "Construction of Residential

Complex", "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" and

2

Service Tax Appeal No. 52195 of 2024

"Management Maintenance or Repair Service". The appellant was

awarded the work of civil construction and development contract from

Rajasthan Housing Board. On the basis of information received from

Rajasthan Housing Board that appellant was providing taxable services

to them during the period 2005-06 to 2009-10 and not paying the

service tax. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant and the

appellant submitted the document related to work orders, Income Tax

return/Balance Sheet, copy of copy of ST-3 returns for the said period.

After scrutinized the documents, a Show Cause Notice dated

20.10.2010 was issued for the period 2005-06 to 2009-10 proposing

the demand of service tax on Construction of Complex and

Management, Maintenance and Repair Services. The appellant

contested the show cause notice but the adjudicating authority partly

confirmed the demand and partly dropped the demand. The said

order was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal remanded

matter back to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh. In remand

proceedings, a demand of Rs. 1,05,50,209/- was dropped and a

demand of Rs. 3,23,878/- was confirmed under “Works Contract

Service” for construction of Compound Wall for Rajasthan Housing

Board. Against the confirmation of said demand, the appellant is

before me.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as show cause

notice proposed to demand service tax under the category of

“Construction of Complex and Management Maintenance and Repair

Services” whereas the demand has been confirmed under „Works

Contract Services‟, therefore, the authorities below has gone beyond

3

Service Tax Appeal No. 52195 of 2024

the scope of show cause notice. Therefore, the impugned demand is

not sustainable.

4. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative supported

the impugned order and drew my attention to the works contract

awarded to the appellant for construction of boundary wall on a vacant

plot of land. Therefore, it is his submission that the activity of

construction of boundary wall appropriately classified under „Works

Contract Service‟ and demand is rightly confirmed.

5. Heard the parties.

6. I find that in this case, admittedly, show cause notice has been

issued to propose demand from the appellant under “Construction of

Complex and Management Maintenance and Repair Services” whereas

the impugned demand has been confirmed under „Works Contract

Services‟ which is not permissible in law as the authorities below has

gone beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Therefore, the said

demand is not sustainable. Accordingly, the demand of Rs. 3,23,878/-

is set-aside. Consequently, no penalty is imposable on the appellant.

7. With these terms, the appeal is allowed.

(Order dictated and pronouncement in the Open Court)

(ASHOK JINDAL)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

G.Y.