Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 495 - CESTAT KOLKATALevy of penalty u/s 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 - classification of services - activities of execution of the work of interior decorator - Interior Decorator Service or works contract service - period June, 2007 to March, 2008 - HELD THAT:- The entire service has been provided by the assessee along with materials. The said fact has not been disputed either of the sides. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of SPANDREL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD [2010 (5) TMI 299 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], it is held that the appropriate classification of the said services is “Works Contract Service”. As there is no demand under “Works Contract Service” against the assessee, but the assessee opted to pay service tax under composite scheme of works contract, the same has been taken on record. In that circumstances, the appropriate classification of activities of works undertaken is “Works Contract Service” and they have discharged service tax liability. In these circumstances, the demand against the assessee under the category of “Interior Decorator Service” is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. As the demand is not sustained, the question of imposing penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, does not arise. Appeal filed by assessee allowed.
|