SPANDREL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD-II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is required to pre -deposit duty amount of Rs. 1,09,39,242/ - appellants have been brought within the category of Interior Decorators for the purpose of levy of Service Tax. Larger period has also been invoked for confirmation of these demands which includes Education Cess. The appellants contention is that the activity carried out by them is civil work and that civil work will come within the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Services. The definition refers to the activity of completion and finishing services such as glazing, plastering, painting, floor and wall tiling, wall covering, wall papering, wood and metal joinery and carpentry, fencing and railing, construction of swimming pools, acoustic applications or fittings and other similar services, in relation to building or civil structures. Revenue has considered their activity is having a particular bearing and coming within the category of Interior Decorators and no civil work is carried out by them. The appellants contention is that even as per the investigations carried out and statements recorded from the proprietor, they were carrying on the work of pest control, demolition and dismantling, masonry work, wall preparations, viz.', cement plaster, POP punning, flooring & cladding viz., Iranian/Italian marble flooring, ceramic tile flooring, vitrified ceramic tile flooring, kotah flooring, skirting & trims, counters, false ceiling, partitions, etc. It is submitted that these activities as per the statement of the proprietor would come only under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Services which was brought into effect from 16 -6 -2005, therefore, there was no category available for bringing these services for the period 1 -10 -2000 to 30 -9 -2005. The finding recording by the authorities that the work carried out by them would come within the definition of Interior Decorators more particularly in the explanation in any other manner is not correct.

(2.) THE learned Counsel submits that in terms of the definition of Interior Decorators means any person engaged, whether directly or indirectly, in the business of providing by way of advice, consultancy, technical assistance or in any other manner, services related to planning, design or beautification of spaces, whether man -made or otherwise and includes a landscape designer. It is submitted that they were not carrying on any of these activities but were engaged in civil work as per the statement given by the proprietor. Hence, the levy of Service Tax is seriously disputed. The learned Counsel submitted that the appellant is a proprietary concern and he is faced with severe financial hardship and at this stage they would be able to pre -deposit Rs.10 lakhs if time is granted to them.

(3.) THE learned JDR submitted that the Commissioner has perused the issue in detail and considered their prayers. He has noted that the type of work carried out by them in terms any other manner would be brought within the ambit Interior Decorators. He prays for putting the appellants on better terms, then the offer made by the appellants.