Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 403 - AT - Service TaxInterior Decorator Service - Held that:- Following Spandrel Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad [2010 (5) TMI 299 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] - Services rendered by assessee were brought for first time in definition of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' w.e.f. 16.06.2005 – Thus, the activities of assessee during relevant period would not be covered under definition of 'Interior decorator's service' - The activities which had been undertaken in the clarification have been specifically included - This would indicate that prior to 16.6.2005, these were not included in the category of 'interior decorator service' - if the category of services is brought into service tax net from a specific date, such services would not be covered under any other category of services. Any structure or edifice enclosing a space within its walls would come within the scope of building and therefore even a particular floor or unit of a building which encloses a space within its walls and covered with roof would come within the scope of term "building" - if any activity is undertaken in relation to a particular floor or unit of the building, it would certainly amount to activity being undertaken in relation to a building as envisaged in clauses (c) and (d) of Section 65 (25b) of the Finance Act, 1994 - In the definition of taxable service, under section 65 (105) (zzq), the expression used is "in relation to" has been construed to be of widest amplitude – Relying upon Doypack Systems Ltd. Vs. UOI [1988 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ]. Difference of opinion - On the issue of classification and taxability, both the members are in agreement - decided against the assessee. - But on the issue of raising demand invoking extended period of limitation and levy of penalty, there is no consent between the two members - matter referred to larger bench on the issue of period of limitation and penalty.
|