9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow 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 ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion bench decision of the Tribunal in Russell Interiors Private Limited vs. CGST, Service Tax-Delhi [Service Tax Appeal No. 54338 of 2014 decided on 09.10.2018], in which the order dated 28.11.2013 was impugned. The Tribunal had set aside the order and the appeal was allowed. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned in the present also deserves to be set aside for the same reasons. 4. Shri Rajeev Kapoor, learned authorized representative appearing for the department has, however, supported the impugned order. 5. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned authorized representative appearing for the department have been considered. 6. The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assistance or consultancy. The moment the nature of services as mentioned herein are provided without the said technical consultancy, the service comes out of the ambit of interior decoration services. These particular findings are sufficient for us to hold that Show Cause Notice has wrongly proposed the demand under interior decorator services and the adjudicating authority below also has been wrong by holding these services as interior decorator services. 6. The perusal of order under challenge clarifies that the Commissioner himself has acknowledged the services of the appellant when provided to OC-CWG to be in the nature of work contract service. The order is absolutely silent to create any distinction about services being prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department is held to have wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation as there remains no evasion of tax on part of appellant what to talk of the intent to so evade. Show Cause Notice is therefore held to be barred by time. 8. For the demand within the normal period of limitation, the demand is already held not sustainable. In view of entire above discussion, the order is set aside and Appeal is allowed. (emphasis supplied) 8. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, the order dated 21.04.2014 passed by the Tribunal confirming the demand under interior decorator service deserves to be set aside and is set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. (Order dictated in the Open Court) - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
