2018 (6) TMI 252 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - Finishing Work - finishing work (wood and metal joinery & carpentry) relating to Automatic sliding door at Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank Head Office building in one work order - finishing work like fixing of doors & windows fixing pre-laminated particle board / decorative lamination etc. - Works Contract Services or Commercial or Industrial Construction Service - Held that - The nature of the activity carried out by the appellant for Jaipur Development Authority was in the nature of finishing services. One of the work orders was for fixing of automatic sliding door at Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank s head office building. The second work order was pertaining to fixing of doors & windows with pre-laminated particle board/decorative lamination, providing & fixing glazing in aluminium door, window etc. From the nature of the work orders, it is found that the same does not appear to include supply of material alongwith service and as such do not merit classification under the Works Contract Service . Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute regarding service tax liability on work orders executed by the appellant for Jaipur Development Authority during 2006-07 to 2008-09 under the category of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' (CICS) or 'Works Contract Services'.

Analysis:
The appellant executed two work orders for the Jaipur Development Authority involving finishing work related to Automatic sliding door at Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank Head Office building and fixing of doors & windows with pre-laminated particle board/decorative lamination. The Department contended that the services rendered were liable to service tax under 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' (CICS). Both lower authorities upheld the demand of service tax. The appellant argued that the work orders fall under 'Works Contract Services' and are liable to service tax only from 01.06.2007. The Revenue justified the impugned order, stating that the work orders were for finishing works and not works contracts. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the nature of the activity was finishing services, and the work orders did not include supply of material along with service, thus not meriting classification under 'Works Contract Service'.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, which was sustained for the reasons mentioned therein. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.