2017 (1) TMI 656 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of service - Interior Decorator s Service - Composition Scheme - Works Contract Service - Held that - the appellants were engaged in various civil works involving supply of materials with reference to preparing the building premises in a particular manner. The work involved are wood frame beveling, partition, lamination, fabrication, door, fixings, plumbing, sanitary work, ceramic work and many such activities. We could not find any indication regarding advice, consultancy, etc. with reference to planning, design or beautification of space. We note that Interior Decorator s Service in terms of statutory definition deals more with advice, consultancy and technical assistance and not on execution of elaborate civil fabrication/construction work. We find that all the contracts in dispute required to be examined by the Original Authority for a fresh decision. One more important issue requires a fresh consideration by the Original Authority. This is with reference to the composite nature of work order as submitted by the appellant. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of service rendered by the appellant under Interior Decorator's Service.
2. Application of best judgment method for calculating service tax liability.
3. Consideration of composite nature of work orders for service tax levy.
4. Applicability of penalty under Section 78 and time bar for demand.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in the appeal was the classification of the service provided by the appellant under Interior Decorator's Service. The appellant contested that their services did not fall under this category and that they were wrongly classified. The Tribunal emphasized that the nature of the service should be determined based on the actual activities undertaken, not just the appellant's registration or income classification. The Tribunal found that the appellant was involved in civil works like wood framing, plumbing, and fabrication, which did not align with the definition of Interior Decorator's Service. The case was remanded to the Original Authority for a fresh decision after examining the work orders in detail.

2. The Tribunal also addressed the use of the best judgment method by the Original Authority to calculate the service tax liability for the year 2010-2011. It was noted that the calculation based on previous years' balance sheets was legally unsustainable. The Tribunal highlighted the need for the appellant to be given an adequate opportunity to provide income details for the disputed period. The case was remanded for a fresh decision on the service tax liability calculation.

3. Another crucial issue raised was the composite nature of the work orders submitted by the appellant. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment stating that service tax liability on indivisible work contracts only applied from a specific date. The matter was remanded to the Original Authority for further consideration on the applicability of service tax on composite work orders.

4. Lastly, the Tribunal left open the question of penalty under Section 78 and the time bar for demand, indicating that these issues needed further examination by the Original Authority. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision, allowing the appeal by way of remand.