SHOBHA P. BHOPATKAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld that demand of Rs. 10,71,142/ -, interest and penalty on the ground that the appellant provided interior decorator service. The contention of the appellant is that appellant undertaken the activity of actual plantation of grass and trees, shrubs in factory area and also undertaken the work of maintenance of lawns etc. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the appellants are directly or indirectly in the business of providing by way of advice, consultancy and technical assistance in respect of beautification of space and it is covered under the definition of interior decorator as clause (59) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994.

(2.) THE contention is that the applicant had undertaken the activity of plantation and maintenance of grass and plant which cannot be considered as any advice consultancy for beautification, rather it is execution of work. The appellant relied on work orders to show that activity undertaken by "the appellant is of levelling of the plots and plantation of trees etc. Hence the demand is not sustainable.

(3.) IN the present case demand has been made under the interior decorator service. For ready reference Clause (59) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 is reproduced below: