75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

September 2014

2014 (35) S.T.R. 78 (Tri.-Mumbai) Shobha P. Bhopatkar vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-III

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Whether composite contract of plantation i.e. landscaping including beautification may be treated as providing advice or consultancy, taxable under interior decorator service?

Facts:
The appellants undertook the activity of plantation of grass, trees, shrubs in the factory area along with maintenance of lawns. On the basis that the appellants had directly or indirectly provided advice, consultancy and technical assistance in respect of beautification of space, Commissioner (Appeals) held that the activities were covered u/s. 65(59) i.e., interior decorator’s service. The appellants contested that they had executed the work and there was absence of any advice or consultancy for beautification of the space and therefore, the activity was not covered under interior decorator services. The department contended that there was a composite contract covering landscaping which included beautification by way of plantation and landscaping was covered under the definition of interior decorator.

Held:
Allowing the appeal, it was held that the work orders were for execution of various works and did not involve advisory, consultancy or technical assistance.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

2014 (35) S.T.R. 77 (Tri.-Mumbai) Jyotsana D. Patel vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Nagpur

2014 (35) S.T.R. 88 (Tri.-Mumbai) B4U Television Network (I) P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai