JUDGMENT

: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. Prahlad G, learned counsel representing Mr. Karan Talwar, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

2. The appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad in Service Tax Appeal No.30591 of 2025.

3. The challenge to the impugned order primarily was on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal has erred inasmuch as not considering the aspect of the demand being barred by limitation which the appellant had agitated all along before all the authorities till the stage of the appeal before the CESTAT. However, ignoring the aspect of limitation, the Tribunal proceeded and decided the issue of imposition of penalty upon the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The imposition of the penalty under Section 78 stands decided in favour of the appellant. It is now the present has been filed questioning the very demand itself on the ground of delay.

4. At the outset, it would be relevant to take note of the contents reflected in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, which, for ready reference, is being reproduced hereunder:

Learned Advocate submits that they are not contesting the demand of service tax on merit, however, they are contesting the imposition of penalty. under section 78. In support thereof, they are submitting that the appellants were having bonafide belief that the said service was in the nature of export of service and therefore, not liable to service tax during the relevant period. He also submits that they had disclosed all the information to the investigating agency and subsequently, they had also filed and availed themselves of amnesty scheme under SVLDRS. This is in support that they had bonafide belief that no tax was leviable on the said transaction. It is also submitted that ST3 returns for the period October, 2014 to March, 2015 was filed, though the figure pertaining to overriding commission was not reflected in the said ST3 return due to their bonafide belief that the same is not leviable to service tax.

5. The plain reading of the contents of paragraph 3 of the impugned order would give clear indication as to the limited ground of the appeal being argued at before the CESTAT. The reading of the entire paragraph 3 would also give a clear indication of the appellant, in fact, admitting the demand raised by the department and has also approached the authorities under the amnesty scheme under SVLDRS which further strengthens the finding of the Appellate Tribunal insofar as the petitioner not contesting the demand on any ground, even on the ground of limitation.

6. In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the said ground raised by the appellant in the present appeal is not one which is sustainable and the central excise appeal, therefore, deserves to be and is, accordingly, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.