Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Chaitanya Builders And Leasing Limited vs Cst Ch - Ii on 26 September, 2025
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
Service Tax Appeal No. 41955/2015
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 127/2015 (STA - II) dated 2.6.2015 passed by
the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals - II), Chennai)
Chaitanya Builders & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Kakni Towers, 15, Khader Nawaz Khan Road
Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006.
Vs.
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Respondent
Chennai North Commissionerate 26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
APPEARANCE:
Smt. Radhika Chandrasekar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri N. Satyanarayanan, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) Hon'ble Shri Ajayan T.V., Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO. 41068/2025 Date of Hearing: 01.09.2025 Date of Decision: 26.09.2025 Per M. Ajit Kumar, This appeal is filed by the appellant against Order in Appeal No. 127/2015 (STA - II) dated 2.6.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals - II), Chennai (impugned order).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with the Service Tax Department and is providing taxable services under the category 'Works Contract Service', 'Construction of Residential Complex Service' and 'Architecture Service' which are composite services involving the supply of both goods and services. Verification of ST3 returns filed by the appellant revealed that the appellant had 2 wrongly computed 33% of value for payment of service tax for the period from 2005 - 06 to 2006 - 07 by including the full rate of service tax in the gross value instead of including the actual service tax payable i.e. 33% of the service tax resulting in short-payment of service tax of Rs.9,65,893/-; wrongly reversed service tax payment of Rs.9,00,000/- paid in respect of 4 residential flats which were part of commercial complex "Reflection" at Santhome, Chennai; wrongly excluded the land (UDS) value received from the customers while computing the value for payment of service tax @2% under composition scheme in respect of residential complex at ECR, Muthukadu, resulting in short-payment of service tax of Rs.6,00,532/-
for the period from July 2007 to March 2008 and wrongly utilized the CENVAT credit of Rs.3,60,973/- accrued in September 2005 for payment of service tax for the period from June 2005 to August 2005 resulting in short-payment of service tax of Rs.3,60,973/-.
Hence Show Cause Notice dated 29.6.2010 was issued to the appellant demanding an amount of Rs.9,65,893/- short-paid and Rs.18,61,505/-
towards other demands besides proposing to impose penalty under sections 76 and 78 and interest under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. After due process of law, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands of Service Tax of Rs.9,65,893/- and Rs.18,61,505/- along with appropriate interest and imposed penalty of Rs.28,27,398/- under section 78 of the Act. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) which came to be dismissed. Hence this appeal.
33. The learned Advocate Smt. Radhika Chandrasekar appeared for the appellant and Ld. Authorized Representative Shri N. Satyanarayanan appeared for the respondent.
3.1 The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Appellant is a developer and is engaged in works contract services. They had taken registration under construction of residential complex services and commercial or industrial construction services. They have discharged service tax on 33% of the value under construction of residential complex services for the period in dispute. The Appellant being a developer there was no liability to pay service tax for the period prior 01.07.2010 as Finance Act, 2010 for the first time brought developers into the ambit of service w.e.f. 01.07.2010 by way of an Explanation to Section 65(105)(zzzh). The Ld. Counsel relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Krishna Homes Vs CCE (2014) 34 STR 881.
Following the said decision this Tribunal in Appellant's own case, for the period October 2006 to September 2011, vide Final Order No. 40530/2024 dated 06.05.2024 allowed the Appeal on the ground that being a developer there is no liability to pay the service tax prior to 01.07.2010. The Ld. Counsel stated that the Appellant had availed CENVAT credit a few months prior to the actual payment of service charges. However, this early availment did not result in any financial loss to the Government, as the Appellant possessed sufficient eligible Cenvat credit at the time of utilization. In the absence of any financial loss to the Revenue, the availment does not amount to a violation, nor does it lead to any short payment of service tax and it is only procedural in nature. Invocation of extended period of limitation is not 4 correct since there is no intention to evade payment of Service Tax. In view of the fact that the Appellant is a developer there is no liability to pay Service tax for the period prior to 01.07.2010 and hence interest and penalty cannot be levied. She prayed that the impugned order may be set aside.
3.2 Ld. A.R. Shri N. Satyanarayanan who appeared for revenue, reiterated the point given in the findings of the impugned order.
3.3 After hearing both sides and perusing the records, we find that the impugned period is from June 2005 to March 2008. The issue whether Service Tax is payable on the composite services of 'Works Contract Service', 'Construction of Residential Complex Service' and 'Architecture Service' Construction of Residential Complex Service' during the said period is no longer res integra. The issue of work contract was examined in detail by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. RPP Infra Projects Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Final Order Nos. 40564-40575/2024, Dated:
30.05.2024. The Bench speaking through one of us [Shri M Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical)], held as under:
"3. It may at this stage be helpful to chronicle the important events and judgments that would provide the legal framework for the discussions on the dispute during the impugned time period.
3.1 Chronological dates and events pertaining to statutory
provisions/ notifications
Date Development Remarks / Summary *
10.09.2004 Service tax levied on Sec. 65 (105) (zzq). Taxable service means any
"Construction service". service provided or to be provided to any person
by a commercial concern, inr elation to
construction service.
Sec. 65 (30a) "construction service" means,
(a) construction of new building or civil structure or a part thereof; or
(b) repair, alteration or restoration of, or similar services in relation to, building or civil structure, 5 which is -
(i) used, or to be used, primarily for; or
(ii) occupied, or to be occupied, primarily with; or
(iii) engaged, or to be engaged, primarily in, commerce or industry, or work intended for commerce or industry, but does not include road, airport, railway, transport terminal, bridge, tunnel, long distance pipeline and dam.
10.09.2004 67 % abatement Notification 15/2004 Service Tax Dt.
(exemption from value) 10.09.2004
provided for.
16.06.2005 "Construction service" Sec. 65 (25b) "commercial or industrial
renamed as "commercial construction service" means --
or industrial construction (a) construction of a new building or a civil
service. structure or a part thereof; or
(b) construction of pipeline or conduit; or
(c) completion and finishing services such
as glazing, plastering, painting, floor and wall tiling, wall covering and wall papering, wood and metal joinery and carpentry, fencing and railing, construction of swimming pools, acoustic applications or fittings and other similar services, in relation to building or civil structure; or
(d) repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services in relation to, building or civil structure, pipeline or conduit, which is --
(i) used, or to be used, primarily for; or
(ii) occupied, or to be occupied, primarily
with; or
(iii) engaged, or to be engaged, primarily in,
commerce or industry, or work intended for commerce or industry, but does not include such services provided in respect of roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams.
16.06.2005 Service Tax levied on Sec. 65 (105) (zzzh) Taxable service means any "Construction of complex service provided or to be provided to any person service" by any other person in relation to construction of complex.
Sec. 65 (30a) "construction of complex"
means --
(a) construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof; or
(b) completion and finishing services in relation to residential complex such as glazing, plastering, painting, floor and wall tiling, wall covering and wall papering, wood and metal joinery and carpentry, fencing and railing, construction of swimming pools, acoustic applications or fittings and other similar services; or
(c) repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services in relation to, residential complex.
Sec. 65 (91a) "residential complex" means any complex comprising of--
(i) a building or buildings, having more than twelve residential units;
(ii) a common area; and
(iii) any one or more of facilities or services such as park, lift, parking space, community hall, common water supply or effluent treatment system, 6 located within a premises and the layout of such premises is approved by an authority under any law for the time being in force, but does not include a complex which is constructed by a person directly engaging any other person for designing or planning of the layout, and the construction of such complex is intended for personal use as residence by such person.
Explanation. -- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this clause, --
(a) "personal use" includes permitting the complex for use as residence by another person on rent or without consideration;
(b) "residential unit" means a single house or a single apartment intended for use as a place of residence.
16.06.2005 67 % abatement Notification 18/2005 Service Tax Dt.
(exemption from value) 07.06.2005
provided for.
01.03.2006 All abatements are Notification 1/2006 Service Tax Dt.
prescribed under single 01.03.2006
Notification and the above
individual notifications
rescinded
01.06.2007 Introduction of Service Tax Sec. 65 (105) (zzzza). Taxable service means
on "works contracts" any service provided or to be provided to any
person, by any other person in relation to the execution of a works contract, excluding works contract in respect of roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams. Explanation. -- For the purposes of this sub- clause, "works contract" means a contract wherein, --
(i) transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods, and
(ii) such contract is for the purposes of carrying out, --
(a) erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery, equipment or structures, whether pre-fabricated or otherwise, installation of electrical and electronic devices, plumbing, drain laying or other installations for transport of fluids, heating, ventilation or air-conditioning including related pipe work, duct work and sheet metal work, thermal insulation, sound insulation, fire proofing or water proofing, lift and escalator, fire escape staircases or elevators; or
(b) construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof, or of a pipeline or conduit, primarily for the purposes of commerce or industry; or
(c) construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof; or
(d) completion and finishing services, repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services, in relation to (b) and (c); or
(e) turnkey projects including engineering, procurement and construction or commissioning (EPC) projects.
01.06.2007 Rule 2 A introduced in Notification 29/2007 Service Tax Dt.
Service Tax (Determination 22.05.2007
of Value) Rules, 2000 to
prescribe mechanism for
7
valuation of service portion
of works contract
01.06.2007 Optional Composition Works Contracts (Composition scheme for
scheme introduced for payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007.
payment of Service Tax on Notification 32/2007 Service Tax Dt. 22.05.2007
Works Contracts,
prescribing Service Tax
rate of 2 % on gross amount
04.01.2008 CBIC clarified that if tax was CBIC Circular No. 98/1/2008 Dt. 04.01.2008
paid under CICS or CCS
before 01.06.2007, such A service provider who paid service tax prior to
service shall continue to 01.06.07 for the taxable service, namely,
be classified under CICS erection, commissioning or installation service,
or CCS and the benefit of commercial or industrial construction service or
composition scheme is not construction of complex service, as the case
applicable. may be, is not entitled to change the
classification of the single composite service for the purpose of payment of service tax on or after 01.06.07 and hence, is not entitled to avail the Composition Scheme.
01.03.2008 The rate of tax under Notification 7/2008 Service Tax Dt.
composition scheme 01.03.2008
enhanced to 4 %
01.07.2010 In the definition of CICS and The purpose of introduction of this Explanation
CCS, the following during Budget has been explained in CBIC's
Explanation has been letter 334/1/2010 TRU Dt. 26.02.2010, as
added. under;
Explanation. -- For the
purposes of this sub- In the definition of the taxable services
clause, the construction of 'Construction of Complex service' [section 65
a new building which is (105) (zzzh)], and 'Commercial or industrial
intended for sale, wholly or construction service' [section 65 (105) (zzq)], it
partly, by a builder or any is being provided that unless the entire
person authorised by the consideration for the property is paid after the
builder before, during or completion of construction (i.e. after issuance of
after construction (except in completion certificate by the competent
cases for which no sum is authority), the activity of construction would be
received from or on behalf deemed to be a taxable service provided by the
of the prospective buyer by builder/promoter/developer to the prospective
the builder or the person buyer and the service tax would be charged
authorised by the builder accordingly.
before grant of completion
certificate by the authority
competent to issue such
certificate under any law for
the time being in force) shall
be deemed to be service
provided by the builder to
the buyer.
24.08.2010 The clarification issued CBIC Circular No. 128/10/2010 Dt. 24.08.2010
on 04.01.2008 is modified.
It is clarified that the Classification of services would undergo a
classification of CICS and change in case of long term contracts even
CCS should be changed to though part of the service was classified under
WCS after 01.06.2017. the respective taxable service prior to 01.06.2007. This is because 'works contract' describes the nature of the activity more specifically. As regards applicability of composition scheme, this provision casts an obligation for exercising an option to choose the scheme prior to payment of service tax in respect of a particular works contract. Once such an option is made, it is applicable for the entire contract and cannot be altered. Therefore, in case a contract where the 8 provision of service commenced prior to 01.06.2007 and any payment of service tax was made under the respective taxable service before 01.06.2007, the said condition under rule 3(3) was not satisfied and thus no portion of that contract would be eligible for composition scheme. On the other hand, even if the provision of service commenced before 01.06.2007 but no payment of service tax was made till the taxpayer opted for the composition scheme after its coming into effect from 01.06.2007, such contracts would be eligible for opting of the composition scheme.
20.06.2012 Service Tax Mega Clause 2(s) ""governmental authority" means Exemption Notification No. a board, or an authority or any other body 25/2012 dated 20/06/2012, established with 90% or more participation by later amended by way of equity or control by Government and set Notification dated up by an Act of the Parliament or a State 30/01/2014 Legislature to carry out any function entrusted to a municipality under article 243W of the Constitution."
Post Amendment:
Clause 2(s) ""governmental authority" means an authority or a board or any other body;
(i) set up by an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature; or
(ii) established by Government, with 90% or more participation by way of equity or control, to carry out any function entrusted to a municipality under article 243W of the Constitution.
01.07.2012 Section 66D of the 1994 Ratio of L & T decision is no more relevant, Act, inserted by the Finance for services provided after introduction of Act, 2012 with effect from negative list based levy of service tax has been 1st July, 2012, specifies the introduced.
'Negative List of
Services', i.e., the services
on which service tax is not
leviable. Individual
classification of services
has been done away with.
01.07.2012 Composition scheme under
WCS rescinded. Rule 2A of
Service Tax (Determination
of Value Rules) 2000
amended, to provide for
two options to pay tax on
works contracts.
* Remarks/ Summary is only for ease of understanding. The actual provisions may be looked into.
3.2 Chronological dates of important Judgements.
S.No. Judgement Remarks
1 Nagarjuna Construction Co. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Held that the
Ltd. Vs GOI - 2012 (28) STR 561 appellant, who had paid service tax prior to
SC, decided on 09/11/2012 01.06.07 for the taxable services, namely,
erection, commissioning or installation service, commercial or industrial construction service or construction of complex service, was not entitled to change the classification of the single composite service for the purpose of payment of 9 service tax on or after 01.06.07 and hence, was not entitled to avail of the Composition Scheme.
Validity of CBIC circular Dated 04/01/2008 was upheld.
2 Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that others Vs State of Karnataka building contracts are species of the works [2014 (34) S.T.R. 481 (S.C.)]. contract. It summed up the legal position Decided on 26/09/2013. regarding the difference between a contract for work and a contract for sale. Even if in a contract, besides the obligations of supply of goods and materials and performance of labour and services, some additional obligations are imposed, such contract does not cease to be works contract 3 Commissioner of Central Settled the law that composite works Excise and Customs, Kerala contracts involving services and goods covered Vs Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 under Section 65(105)(zzzza) are liable to tax (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.)]. Decided only with effect from 1st June, 2007. Service on 20/08/2015 contracts prior to 01/06/2007, would cover only pure service contracts.
4 Suresh Kumar Bhansal Vs UOI Explanations added in CICS and CCS from
- 2016 (43) STR 3 Del. Decided 01.07.2010 struck down, in the absence of
on 03/06/2016 by Hon'ble Delhi statutory mechanism to determine the value of
High Court service.
5 Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs While claiming abatement of 67% whether the
CST. Decision of the Larger value of materials supplied by customer also
Bench of the Tribunal Dated should be included or not. Held in favour of
06.09.2013. Upheld by the assesses, that the same is not includible.
Hon'ble SC on 19/02/2018 (L &
T decision is also noted by SC)
6 Realvalue Promoters Pvt. Ltd. L & T Followed. Even after 01.06.2007,
Vs CCE, Chennai CESTAT. Service Tax on composite contracts can be
Decided on 18/09/2018 levied only under WCS and demands under
CICS and CCS set aside.
7 Total Environment Building Hon'ble Supreme Court noted its judgment in
Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Nagarjuna Construction Company, but
Commissioner of Commercial rejected Revenue's plea to re-consider and/or
Taxes [2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 257 review its judgment in the case of Larsen and
(S.C.)]. decided on decided on Toubro Limited, Kerala.
02-08-2022
8 Jain Housing & Construction Real Value decision followed.
Ltd. Vs CST, CESTAT,
Chennai. Decided on
24/02/2023. Upheld by Hon'ble
SC on 05.09.2023
4. Legal position
4.1 The legal position as it stands is that;
I) In Larsen and Toubro Limited and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another [Civil Appeal No. 8672 of 2013, dated: 26/09/2013 - (2014) (1) SCC 708] (henceforth referred to as L&T Karnataka), the Apex Court deciphered the meaning of the works contract from the earlier judgments and in para 72 opined as under:
"72. In our opinion, the term "works contract" in Article 366(29A)(b) is amply wide and cannot be confined to a particular understanding of the term or to a particular form. The term encompasses a wide range and many varieties of contract. Parliament had such wide meaning of "works contract" in its view at the time of the Forty-sixth Amendment.10
The object of insertion of clause (29A) in Article 366 was to enlarge the scope of the expression "tax on sale or purchase of goods" and overcome Gannon Dunkerley (1) [State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 560 : 1959 SCR 379]. Seen thus, even if in a contract, besides the obligations of supply of goods and materials and performance of labour and services, some additional obligations are imposed, such contract does not cease to be works contract. The additional obligations in the contract would not alter the nature of contract so long as the contract provides for a contract for works and satisfies the primary description of works contract. Once the characteristics or elements of works contract are satisfied in a contract then irrespective of additional obligations, such contract would be covered by the term "works contract".
(emphasis added) II) A contract which has both the elements of goods and service is a works contract. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner Central Excise & Customs, Kerala vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 6770 OF 2004/ 2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.)] (henceforth referred to as L&T Kerala) held that 'Works Contract' is a separate species of contract distinct from contracts for services simpliciter. Service contracts simpliciter is used to describe pure service contracts where the focus is solely on the provision of services i.e. services provided without any associated supply of goods or other complexities. There was no charging section to tax 'works contract' in the Finance Act, 1994 (FA 1994) i.e. until the amendment made with the insertion of subclause (zzzza) to clause 105 of Section 65 of the FA1994 on 01.06.2007.
III) Pure construction services, where all materials etc. required for the construction are supplied by the service recipient and the service provider is engaged only for provision of construction service (not composite involving supply of goods) and are not in the nature of works contract are liable to service tax, prior to 1.6.2007. IV) The Hon'ble Apex Court in L&T Kerala (supra) held that any charge to tax under the five heads in Section 65(105) would only be of service contracts simpliciter and not composite indivisible works contract. Those five heads are:
(g) to a client, by a consulting engineer in relation to advice, consultancy or technical assistance in any manner in one or more disciplines of engineering but not in the discipline of computer hardware engineering or computer software engineering;
(zzd) to a customer, by a commissioning and installation agency in relation to erection, commissioning or installation; (zzh) to any person, by a technical testing and analysis agency, in relation to technical testing and analysis; (zzq) to any person, by a commercial concern, in relation to construction service;11
(zzzh) to any person, by any other person, in relation to construction of a complex;
V) In the case of Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Others Vs CGST & CE, Chennai - Final Order No. 42436-42438/2018 dt. 18/09/2018 a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal considered the issue as to whether the levy of service tax under CICS/CCS/RCS is sustainable even after 1.6.2007, when the works executed are composite in nature.
The relevant part of the order reads as under:
"7.10 The issue was analyzed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Larsen & Toubro case (supra) and held that there can be no levy of service tax on composite contracts (involving both service and supply of goods) prior to 1.6.2007. This read together with the budget speech as above would lead to the strong conclusion that composite contracts were brought within the ambit of levy of service tax only with effect from 1.6.2007 by introduction of Section 65(105)(zzzza) i.e. Works Contract Services. As pointed out by the ld. counsels for appellants, there is no change in the definition of CICS/CCS/RCS after 1.6.2007. Therefore only those contracts which were service simpliciter (not involving supply of goods) would be subject to levy of service tax under CICS / CCS / RCS prior to 1.6.2007 and after. Our view is supported by the fact that the method / scheme for discharging service tax on the service portion of composite contract was introduced only in 2007. (emphasis added) This judgment was followed by this Tribunal in Jain Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs CST [(2023) 10 Centax 117 (Tri-Mad)] and came to be upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05/09/2023. Composite contracts involving services and goods were liable to tax only with effect from 1st June, 2007.
VI) From 01/07/2012, there was a paradigm shift in the levy of service tax. Section 66D of the 1994 Act, was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01/07/2012, which listed the 17 services specified in the negative list of services, i.e., the services on which service tax is not leviable. Service tax was imposed on all services other than those specified in the negative list."
4. As discussed in the order only service simpliciter (not involving supply of goods) is liable to Service Tax prior to and even after 01.06.2007, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L&T Kerala (supra) and the decisions of the Tribunal cited above. Accordingly, the services of Construction of Residential Complex Service rendered by the appellant during the period from June 2005 to March 2008 in the impugned case not being service simpliciter is not exigible to Service 12 Tax. Further even otherwise works contracts involving transfer of immovable property were brought within the purview of the taxable service by adding Explanation to Section 65(105)(zzzh) with effect from 01.07.2010 only and therefore such contracts were not covered by Section 65(105)(zzzh) during the period prior to 01.07.2010. The issue has also been decided in the appellant's favour vide Final Order dated 06.05.2024 (supra) for the period i.e. October 2006 to September 2011. Para 10 of the said order is reproduced below:-
"10. On perusal of Annexure - B1 of SCN, the demand of service tax is on Land owner's share under Commercial Construction Service. B-11 is the demand made on Land owner's share under construction of Residential Complex Services. Annexure B-III is demand of service tax on Land owner's share under Works Contract Service. Annexure B-IV is again demand of service tax on Land owner's share under Works Contract Services. On examination of these details in the Annexure, it is seen that demand of service tax on the consideration received from land owner (land owner's built up area) are demanded for various residential projects under construction of Residential Complex Services and Works Contract Services. The issue as to whether promoter/builder/developer is liable to pay service tax prior to 1.7.2010 was examined in the case of M/s.Krishna Homes (supra) and also followed and elaborately discussed in the case of M/s.Pragathi Edifice Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Board Circular also clarifies the same. The other demand is under Commercial Construction Service. The Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters (supra) had held that the demand cannot be raised under CCS, RCS, of CICS for the period prior to 1.7.2012. This view was followed in M/s.Jain Housing Corporation (supra) which has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court. The demand of service tax under construction of Residential Complex Services, Commercial Complex Services, or Works Contract Services cannot therefore be sustained and requires to be set aside. Ordered Accordingly."
5. Since the issue has been decided in favour of the appellant on merits the question of interest, penalty etc does not arise.
6. As per the discussion above we find that the impugned order merits to be set aside. However, we also find that the appellant had availed of CENVAT Credit and paid duty during the said period. The appellant has stated that the availment of credit did not result in any financial loss to the Government, but this requires verification just as 13 the excess duty paid needs to be refunded, while determining consequential relief.
7. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of on the said terms.
(Order pronounced in open court on 26.09.2025) (AJAYAN T.V.) (M. AJIT KUMAR) Member (Judicial) Member (Technical) Rex