2008 (2) TMI 647 - AT - Service Tax

Contention of the department is that applicants work (which includes execution of civil work false ceiling work carpentry work painting and plumbing work electrical and any other interior related work as per the plan and design provided by architects or consultants of the customers) would amount to service relating to beautification of spaces and therefore is taxable under category of interior decorators - Prima facie contention of revenue is not correct so stay application is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax under various sections of the Finance Act, 1988 for services rendered by the applicants as interior decorators.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, delivered by Vice-President Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and Member Shri A.K. Srivastava, dealt with the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 91,43,930/- confirmed against the applicants for providing interior decoration services from 16-10-1998 to 25-9-2003. The penalty amounts included Rs. 100/- per day under Sec. 76, Rs. 35,000/- under Sec. 77, and Rs. One crore under Sec. 78 of the Finance Act, 1988. The applicants' services encompassed various activities like civil work, false ceiling work, carpentry work, painting, plumbing work, electrical work, and other interior-related tasks based on architects' or consultants' plans. The department argued that these services fell under the definition of beautification of spaces under Section 65(59) of the Finance Act, making them liable to Service Tax. However, the Tribunal found that prima facie, the services provided by the applicants did not fit the definition of beautification of spaces as per Sec. 65(59).

In a significant reference to a previous case, Space Decorators v. CCE, Pune [2007 (8) S.T.R. 180 (Tri.)], where pre-deposit was waived for a similar situation involving civil and plumbing work along with manufacturing wooden furniture, the Tribunal highlighted that the services were not considered under the category of interior decorators. Drawing parallels, the Tribunal, therefore, decided to waive the pre-deposit of the amounts in question and stayed the recovery pending the appeal. This decision was based on the understanding that the services provided by the applicants did not align with the definition of interior decoration services as per the Finance Act, 1988. The judgment showcased a thorough analysis of the nature of services rendered by the applicants and their classification under the relevant legal provisions, ultimately leading to the decision to grant the waiver of pre-deposit and stay the recovery process during the appeal period.