SPANDREL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following three appeals are disposed of by this common order: - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_74_LAWS(CE)5_2010.htm</FRM>

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case for consideration in all these appeals are that the appellants herein were undertaking interior works such as pest control, demolition and dismantling, masonry work, wall preparation viz., cement, plaster, POP punning; flooring and cladding, works like wall panelling, false ceiling, interior furnishing, partitioning of Banks, Financial Institutions and other firms, etc. It was noticed by the lower authority that the appellants have provided these services to their clients, mostly software companies, Banks, etc., but were not discharging the service tax liability on such services. The lower authorities felt that the services rendered by the appellants fall under the category of Interior Decorator Service' as defined under Section 65(59) of the Finance Act, 1994. Coming to such a conclusion, show -cause notices were issued to the appellants herein, demanding service tax and seeking imposition of penalty and also levying interest on the tax liability. In the case of M/s. Spandrel and M/s. Premier Agencies, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demands and imposed penalties and sought recovery of the same, while M/s. Delta Projects, the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings, but the Commissioner as reviewing authority under Section 84(1), passed the Revision Order confirming the demand which has been raised in the show -cause notice.

(3.) THE learned Departmental Representative submits that the definition of the words 'interior decorator' as indicated in the Finance Act, 1994 has got two parts. It is the submission that the first part includes 'advice, consultancy or technical assistance' and the second part includes services related to 'beautification of spaces'. It is the submission that in all these cases, it is an admitted fact that the appellants are doing the interior work of the banks and software companies. It is the submission that by doing interior work, the appellants have brought more aesthetic look and such services would classify under 'beautification of space'. It is the submission that the case laws relied upon by the appellants was in respect of construction services and could not be considered in the case of 'interior decorator service'. She further submits that the adjudicating authority has correctly brought out difference between 'Interior Decorator Service and 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service'. She submits that 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' would apply only when entire work of the relevant building or civil structure is completed.