Case Law Details
Praveg Communications India Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
In the present case, the appellant’s activity being of setting-up of stalls for exhibition or events cannot be considered to be classified under Interior Decorator’s service for the reason that there is neither any element of beautification of space nor any provision of advice or consultancy is provided by the appellant. The pattern and design for a stall is as per the layout provided by the customers to the appellant. Therefore, the ingredient to classify the service under Interior Decorator’s service, in the present case is not satisfied hence, the service cannot be classified under Interior Decorator’s service. Moreover, the post Negative List regime, with effect from 01.07.2007, the definition of service was done away and there is only service portion in execution of works contract is listed as a declared service for the purpose of levy of service tax. The appellant’s strong claim is that their service is nothing but Works Contract service.
It is settled law, as per Section 65B of the Finance Act, 1994, Works Contract means a contract wherein transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods and such contract is for the purpose of carrying out construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration of any movable or immovable property or for carrying out any other similar activity or a part thereof in relation to such property. In the present case, admittedly the appellant have installed stalls in the exhibition along with material.
With regard to the payment of VAT, the appellant have also submitted VAT Assessment order and VAT return in Form-205 under Section 33 of Gujarat VAT Act, 2003.
From the above documents which are undisputed it is absolutely clear that the appellant have purchased goods and used the same in execution of Works Contract for installation of stalls at exhibition centers. The appellant have also discharged VAT in respect of goods used in execution of Works Contract. In these undisputed facts, the entire activity of the appellant clearly falls under Works Contract service. Accordingly, the service tax at concessional rates discharged as per the Rule 3(1) of Works Contract Rules, 2007 is absolutely correct and legal. Therefore, no demand exists.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
