2008 (11) TMI 194 - AT - Service Tax

Interior Decorator Service - beautification of space by under taking the works like wall panelling, false ceiling, interior furnishing, partitioning of banks, financial institutions and other firms contentionof the appellant was not covered under the definition of Interior Decorator seems to be correct prima facie waiver of pre-deposit granted

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant's services fall within the definition of 'Interior Decorator' for the purpose of Service Tax liability.
2. Whether the appellant is required to make a pre-deposit of a specified amount, penalties, and interest imposed under Sections 75, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The appellant provided services related to beautification of space through activities like wall panelling, false ceiling, and interior furnishing. The Revenue contended that these services fall under the definition of 'Interior Decorator,' leading to a show cause notice. The Adjudicating Authority initially dropped the proceedings, but the Commissioner reversed this decision. The appellant argued that their services did not involve advising, consultancy, or technical assistance for planning or designing spaces. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision granting a stay in a similar case. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, stating that they were not covered under the definition of 'Interior Decorator' and granted a stay on recovery pending appeal.

2. The Revenue argued that the broad term 'in any other manner' in the definition of 'Interior Decorator' encompassed the appellant's work. However, after considering submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's position. The Tribunal noted that a previous case had received an unconditional stay in a similar situation. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the waiver of pre-deposit for the duty, penalty, and interest amount, staying the recovery until the appeal's final disposal scheduled for a specific date.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore addressed the issues of Service Tax liability concerning the definition of 'Interior Decorator' and the requirement for a pre-deposit by the appellant. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that their services did not fall under the specified definition and granted a stay on the recovery of the imposed amounts. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the appellant's services and relevant legal precedents, ultimately providing relief to the appellant pending the appeal's final resolution.