Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 30th June, 2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Division- Okhla, Central Goods and Service Tax (Delhi South) (hereinafter, 'the impugned order') by which a demand of service tax to the tune of Rs. 46,86,276/- under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1944, has been confirmed against the Petitioner, along with certain penalties under Section 76(1) and Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1944. The petition also challenges the order dated 2nd March, 2020 passed by the Designated Committee, Sabka Vikas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme (hereinafter, 'SVLDR Scheme')

3. The petition has a history that deserves to be captured in the present order. During March to December, 2017 the Petitioner had filed certain refund applications under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for accumulated/ unutilised CENVAT credit. The credit being sought by the Petitioner was for the following period:

4. The said CENVAT credits were rejected on 7th September, 2018 by the Department for the entire period.

5. A show cause notice dated 18th October, 2018 (hereinafter, ‘SCN-I’) was the issued to the Petitioner, raising a demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 33,64,946/-. The period covered in the said SCN-I was October, 2015 to September, 2016. The said SCN-I was issued on the premise that the services rendered by the Petitioner do not qualify as ‘export of services’.

6. The Petitioner also challenged the Order in Original dated 7th September, 2018, before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) wherein it was held vide order dated 6th March, 2019 that the Petitioner’s services cannot be treated as export of services as the Petitioner was held to be an intermediary. This order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was challenged before CESTAT and the prayer before CESTAT was to quash the demand and to allow the refund claim of Rs. 8,95,576/-.

7. In the meantime, the Government announced the SVLDR Scheme on 1st September, 2019. The Petitioner, wishing to take advantage of the said Scheme, filed an application in respect of SCN-I under the Scheme. In respect of the said first application, the Department accepted the application of the Petitioner on 31st December, 2019, and relief of Rs. 23,55,462/- was granted to the Petitioner.

8. In the meantime, a second SCN was issued on 19th December, 2019 (hereinafter, ‘SCN-II’) for the following two periods:

● October, 2016 to March, 2017;

● April, 2017 to June, 2017.

9. The Petitioner then filed another application under the SVLDR Scheme with regard to SCN-II. This was, however, rejected by the impugned order dated 2nd March, 2020 on the following grounds:

“The impugned SCN has been issued on 18.12.2019 (which is beyond the stipulated date prescribed in the Scheme) and is pending for adjudication.”

10. In the meantime, SCN-II also got adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 30th June, 2023 wherein the demand of Rs. 46,86,276/- along with interest and penalty has been confirmed against the Petitioner.

11. The case of the Petitioner is that the rejection of the application filed with respect to SCN-II under the SVLDR Scheme is incorrect, inasmuch as, as per Mr. Aggrawal, though the cut off date under the scheme is 30th June, 2019 and the SCN-II was issued on 19th December, 2019, the said SCN-II was merely a continuation of SCN-I itself. According to ld. Counsel, SCN-II