By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, SEPT 17, 2015: REVENUE alleges that during the period 1999-2003 the appellant undertook various activities like carpentry work involving different types of furniture items, modular partitions, fixation of false ceiling, painting of walls and ceilings etc. and the same is chargeable to Service Tax under the ambit of "Interior decorator".

The lower authorities confirmed the demand and hence an appeal came to be filed in the year 2010.

This appeal was decided recently.

The appellant submitted that activity conducted by them could not fall under "Interior decorator services" but may fall under the category of ‘Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services" which came into service tax net from 16 th June 2005. It is also submitted that an identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Spandrel v. CCE Hyderabad/Kochi - 2010-TIOL-830-CESTAT-BANG in favour of the appellant therein.

The AR justified the demand and also submitted that since the appellant was enhancing the interior of the flat where they undertook the work of modular partition, the activity would definitely fall under the category of "interior decorator".

The Bench, after narrating the facts, extracted the defiition of "Interior decorator" and observed that the activities which are undertaken by the appellant are not falling under the category of "interior decorator services".

Noting that there is strong force in the submissions made by the appellant that the issue is finally settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Spandrel (in which the present Member(J) was a Member), the Bench extracted paragraphs 7 & 8 and concluded that the order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

In fine, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

In passing: Perhaps a corrigendum is on its way for the extraction.

(See 2015-TIOL-1961-CESTAT-MUM)