##PAGE1##

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

NEW DELHI

PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. III

E–Hearing

SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50450 OF 2021

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 353(CRM)ST/JDR/UDZ/2020 dated 14.12.2020

passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Central Goods and Service Tax,

G–105, New Industrial Area, Opp. Diesel Shed, Basni, Jodhpur–(Raj.)]

M/s. Rajasthan Housing Board ……... Appellant

Division–I, Udaipur

Salumber Chauhara

Sector–13, Hiran Magri

Udaipur–313002 (Rajasthan)

vs.

Commissioner (Appeals) .......Respondent

Central Excise & Central Goods and Service Tax

G–105, New Industrial Area, Opp. Diesel Shed, Basni

Jodhpur–(Raj.), Udaipur–(Raj.)

AND

SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50451 OF 2021

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 354(CRM)ST/JDR/UDZ/2020 dated 14.12.2020

passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Central Goods and Service Tax,

G–105, New Industrial Area, Opp. Diesel Shed, Basni, Jodhpur–(Raj.)]

M/s. Rajasthan Housing Board ……... Appellant

Division–I, Udaipur

Salumber Chauhara

Sector–13, Hiran Magri

Udaipur–313002 (Rajasthan)

vs.

Commissioner (Appeals) .......Respondent

Central Excise & Central Goods and Service Tax

G–105, New Industrial Area, Opp. Diesel Shed, Basni

Jodhpur–(Raj.), Udaipur–(Raj.)

APPEARANCE

Mr. M. B. Maheshwari, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant

Mr. S. K. Meena, Authorized Representative for the Revenue

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing :09.07.2026

Date of Pronouncement :28.07.2026

2

ST/50450/2021

And

ST/50451/2021

FINAL ORDER NO. 51263-51264/2026

PER: MS. BINU TAMTA

M/s. Rajasthan Housing Board, The appellant has assailed the Order–in–Appeals

upholding the Order of the Assistant Commissioner that the appellant has

wrongly availed the Cenvat Credit without any proper documents as

prescribed under Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, CCR, 2004

2. The appellant is having service tax registration and are engaged in

rendering/receiving taxable services of Construction services other than

residential complex including commercial/industrial buildings or civil

structure, transport of goods by road, renting of immovable service,

construction of residential complex service, legal consultancy service and

other taxable service–other than the 119 listed services. During the

course of audit of the appellant, it was noticed that the appellant have

wrongly availed the cenvat credit without having proper documents

prescribed under Rule 9(1) of the CCR, 2004.

3. Two show cause notices dated 18.07.2019 and 04.08.2019 for the

periods 01.10.2013 to 31.03.2014 and 01.04.2014 to

30.06.2017, respectively were issued for recovery of cenvat credit of

₹ 55,57,792/- and ₹ 55,93,529./-, alleging that credit was taken on the

basis of running account bills prepared by engineers of the appellant and

showing measurement work and amount to be paid to the contractor.

These running account bills do not contain the mandatory information

2 353 & 354(CRM)ST/JDR/UDZ/2020 dated 14.12.2020

3

ST/50450/2021

And

ST/50451/2021

required for availing cenvat credit and therefore, they are not proper

documents in terms of Rule 9(1) of the CCR, 2004. It was further alleged

that the appellant has filed ST–3 Returns for the period April, 2013 to

September 2013 stating that no amount of cenvat credit availed and

closing balance of cenvat credit was ‘nil’ in the return. In the subsequent

return (October 2013 to March 2014) they have shown opening balance

of cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 10,14,321/- and have also availed cenvat

credit of ₹ 45,43,471/- during the said period and utilized the same. The

appellant has failed to produce any documentary evidence to justify the

availment of said amount of credit. The adjudicating authority vide Order

dated 30.06.2020 disallowed the credit and ordered for recovery along

with interest and penalty under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004. On appeal by the

appellant, the impugned order has been passed, rejecting the appeal.

Hence, both the appeals have been f