Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Bhari Interiors & Exteriors vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Chennai on 31 August, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
ST/142/2009
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.59/2008 (MST) dated 29.9.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
M/s. Bhari Interiors & Exteriors Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Respondent
Appearance Ms. A. Sivaranjani, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision: 31.08.2017 Final Order No. 41915 / 2017 Per Bench The appellants are engaged in the activity of supplying and installing wooden doors, windows, panels, cupboards etc. classifiable under completion and finishing services and are registered with the Service Tax Department under the category Commercial or Industrial Construction Service. A show cause notice was issued alleging that the appellants have wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 15/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004 as amended by Notification No. 19/2005-ST dated 7.6.2005 and demanding service tax along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalties. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal.
2. After hearing both sides we find that the period involved in the case is from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006. That the issue being a works contract whether subject to service tax prior to 1.6.2007 has been settled by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 2015 (39) STR 390 (SC). We also note that the coordinate Bench in the case of CCL Products (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur 2017 (48) STR 50 (Tri. Hyd.), in a similar matter, had set aside the demand relying upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court on identical set of facts.
3. Following the same, we hold that the demand is unsustainable. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.
(Operative portion of the order was
pronounced in open court)
(Madhu Mohan Damodhar) (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Rex
2