2023 (3) TMI 499 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - works contract service or interior decorator service - services such as partition work, metal glass works, civil works, wood work finishing, flooring, ceiling, false ceiling, hardware fittings, blinds, wall paper fixing, electrical work, plumbing work, AC ducting and other similar services in relation to constructed buildings/ offices provided by the appellant during the period 2011-12. This show cause notice dated 08.07.2013 refers to an earlier show cause notice dated 19.10.2011 that was issued to the appellant for the period 2006-07 to 2010-11. It is not is dispute that both the show cause notices contain the same charges and in fact, the impugned order notes in paragraph 37 also that since the demand proposed in the earlier said show cause notice dated 19.10.2011 was confirmed by order dated 28.11.2013, the demand proposed in the present show cause notice also deserves to be confirmed. HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the earlier order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner holding that the services would fall under interior decorator service was set aside by order in RUSSELL INTERIORS PVT LTD VERSUS C.S.T., SERVICE TAX, DELHI 2018 (10) TMI 1478 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - it was held in the case that Once such activity is acknowledged by the Department to be a work contract services there is no justification by concluding the similar activities to fall under any other category. The order passed by the Tribunal confirming the demand under interior decorator service deserves to be set aside and is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of services under 'works contract' service or 'interior decorator' service.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by Russell Interiors Private Limited to challenge the order confirming the demand of service tax with penalty and interest for the period 2011-12. The issue revolved around whether the services provided by the appellant, including partition work, civil works, woodwork, flooring, electrical work, plumbing, etc., in relation to constructed buildings/offices, should be classified under 'works contract' service or 'interior decorator' service. The impugned order had classified the services under 'interior decorator' service.

The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision that set aside a similar order confirming the services under 'interior decorator' service. The Tribunal in the previous case found that the appellant's services did not fall under 'interior decorator' service as they were not related to design or technical assistance but were in the nature of work contract services. The Tribunal also held that the extended period of limitation invoked by the department was unjustified as there was no evidence of suppression or misrepresentation by the appellant.

Based on the previous Tribunal decision and the nature of services provided by the appellant, the current Tribunal set aside the order confirming the demand under 'interior decorator' service. The Tribunal held that the appellant's services were rightly classified as work contract services and that the demand within the normal period of limitation was not sustainable. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the order confirming the demand under 'interior decorator' service was set aside.