Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Visakha Constructions vs VisakhapatnamIi on 21 November, 2025 (1) ST/713/2010 & ST/228/2011 CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Division Bench Court No. I Service Tax Appeal No. 713 of 2010 (Arising out of OrderinOriginal No.11/2009 (RS) dt.19.11.2009 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, VisakhapatnamI) M/s Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd ......Appellant PO Box No.30, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh 530 001 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam I Port Area, Visakhapatnam, ......Respondent Andhra Pradesh 530 035 AND Service Tax Appeal No. 228 of 2011 (Arising out of OrderinOriginal No.01/2010 (PVR) dt.29.01.2010 passed by Principal Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, VisakhapatnamII) M/s Visakha Constructions D.No.26403, Chaitanya Nagar, Old Gajuwaka, ......Appellant Visakhapatnam, AP 530 035 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam II Port Area, Visakhapatnam, ......Respondent Andhra Pradesh 530 035 Appearance Shri Nirmal Choudhary, Advocate & Shri A. Vamsi Rajesh, CA for the Appellants. Shri A. Rangadham, AR for the Respondent. HON'BLE MR. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER No. A/3048930490/2025 Date of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date of Decision: 21.11.2025 (2) ST/713/2010 & ST/228/2011 [Order per: A.K. JYOTISHI] In Appeal No.ST/713/2012, M/s Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd (hereinafter referred to as HSCL) are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner dt.19.11.2009, whereby, a total demand of Rs.4,44,37,689/ has been confirmed along with equal penalty for the period August, 2002 to March, 2007. Similarly, in Appeal No.ST/228/2011, M/s Visakha Constructions (hereinafter referred to as Visakha) are in appeal against Order of the Commissioner dt.29.01.2011, whereby, demand of Rs.2,92,75,232/ along with equal penalty has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority. 2. The brief facts of the case in respect of HSCL is that they are a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) engaged in carrying out certain construction works and other related activities in the steel plant, power plant, railways, etc. The issue relevant to this appeal is that HSCL were awarded contract for working at Visakhapatnam Steel Plant by M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd (RINL) and the same work was further subcontracted to Visakha. The department, based on certain evidence and statements recorded, felt that their activities would fall under different categories including Cargo Handling Services (CHS), Management, Maintenance or Repair Services (MMRS), Commercial or Industrial Construction Services (CICS) and Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services (MRSAS). Whereas, in the case of Visakha, who were subcontracted the work by HSCL, their activities were considered falling under the heading of CHS. Insofar as subject matter of demand under the head CHS is concerned, it is not in dispute that demands on both HSCL and Visakha are on the same set of activities, where HSCL has outsourced certain activities on subcontract basis to Visakha. 3. Since the major part of demand is concerning with demand on CHS and the fact that both HSCL as well as Visakha have been demanded duty under the said category in relation to same activity, both the appeals are heard together for better appreciation of facts. 4. Learned Advocate for HSCL has primarily contested the demand on various grounds and for the sake of ease of reference, the arguments for difference services are summarized below. (3) ST/713/2010 & ST/228/2011 Cargo Handling Service: 5. The demand is for the period October, 2002 to December, 2006 involving amount of Rs.3,02,57,095/ and Education Cess of Rs.4,16,140/. Learned Advocate has highlighted that as is apparent from the SCN as well as the contract, their entire service was that of handling of finishe