Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Real Time Access Pvt Ltd vs Cochin-Cce on 27 April, 2026
ST/28425/2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Service Tax Appeal No. 28425 of 2013
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.COC-EXCUS-000-COM-061-13-
14 dated 02.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise,
Customs and Service Tax, cochin.)
M/s. Real Time Access Pvt. Ltd.
28/121, Manivelil Building, Appellant(s)
Paepilly Lane, Panambilly Nagar,
Eranakulam.
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Central Excise
and Service Tax
C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Respondent(s)
Cochin - 600 018.
APPEARANCE:
Shri Syed M. Peeran, Ms. Meghna Lal and Sudhanva Kumar.J.N Advocates for the Appellant.
Shri Vikalp Jain, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 20573 /2026 DATE OF HEARING: 13.01.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 27.04.2026 PER: R. BHAGYA DEVI This Appeal is filed by the appellant M/s. Real Time Access Pvt. Ltd. against Order-in-Original No.COC-EXCUS-000-COM- 061-13-14 dated 02.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Cochin.Page 1 of 10
ST/28425/2013
2. Briefly the issue is that the appellant M/s. Real Time Access Pvt. Ltd. Company is engaged in executing work related to painting of buildings including procurement of material and manpower and have registered under the category of Business Auxiliary Services, Business Support Services and Works Contract Services under the Finance Act, 1994. They had entered into an Agreement with M/s. Asian Paints Ltd. for rendering painting services. Revenue on verification of their documents found that the appellant was discharging service tax at the rate of 4% under the Works Contract Services; while according to the Revenue, these painting services were rightly classifiable under 'Management, Maintenance or Repair of Immovable Property Services' and accordingly, issued a notice to the appellant. The Commissioner in the impugned order referring to the definition of the 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Services' and also referring to the Notification No.24/2009-ST dated 27.07.2009 confirmed the demand of service tax under the category of 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Service's along with interest and imposed various penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant is in appeal before us.
3. The Learned Counsel submitted that the appellant entered into an Agreement with M/s. Asian Paints Ltd. on a principal-to- principal basis for providing support to customers who are in need of painting solutions from Asian Paints. The appellant since possessed the required infrastructure and manpower to provide the painting services, entered into an Agreement with M/s. Asian Paints. It is submitted that the same issue was raised for the subsequent period for October 2011 to June 2012 and the Learned Joint Commissioner had dropped the demand on the ground that the services were rightly classifiable under 'Works Contract Services' and not under 'Management, Maintenance or Page 2 of 10 ST/28425/2013 Repair Services' and no appeal was filed against this order, hence attained finality. It is also submitted that in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur: 2016 (335) ELT 303 (Tri.-Kolkata) and Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore: 2022 (56) GSTL 29 (Tri.-Bang) wherein it was held that Revenue cannot have different views at different points of time.
3.1 Further, it is submitted that the appellant was providing end-to-end painting services of residential units and commercial complex to the customers and as per Section 65(25b) and Section 65(30a) of the Finance Act, 1994 'Commercial or Industrial Construction and Construction of Complex Services' included completion and finishing services such as glazing, plastering, painting etc., hence, the services were rightly classifiable under 'Works Contract Services'. The appellant also referred to the case of Spandrel vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad: 2010 (5) TMI 299 CESTAT, Bangalore and the case of P&H Associates vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and ST Vadodara: 2024 (1) TMI 1058-CESTAT Ahmedabad to state that the services are rightly classifiable under 'Works Contract Services'. Further, in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs vs. M/s Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and Others: 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC), it is submitted that service tax on Works Contract Services cannot be levied prior to 01.06.2007.
3.2 With regard to limitation, it is submitted that the appellant had filed ST-3 Returns and based on the audit note for the period 2010 to 2011 and 2011 to 2012, the Department had earlier sought for payment of differential tax under the category of Works Contract Services; hence, subsequent to that the Page 3 of 10 ST/28425/2013 present demand has been raised and having already known the facts, the department cannot allege suppression, hence, invocation of extended period of limitation and penalties cannot sustain.
4. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order.
5. Heard both sides. The period of dispute is from April 2006 to September 2011. During the relevant period, Section 64 of the Finance Act, 1994 defined 'Management, Maintenance or Repair service' as any service provided by-
(i) any person under a contract or an agreement; or
(ii) a manufacturer or any person authorized by him, in relation to
(a) management of properties, whether immovable or not; or
(b) maintenance or repair of properties, whether removable or not; or
(c) maintenance or repair including reconditioning or restoration, or servicing of any goods, excluding a motor vehicle;
Section 65(25b) 'Commercial industrial construction service' means-
(a) construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof; or
(b) construction of pipeline or conduit; or
(c) completion and finishing services such as glazing, plastering, painting, floor and wall tiling, wall covering and wall papering, wood and metal joinery and carpentry, fencing and railing, construction of swimming pools, acoustic applications or fittings and other similar services in relation to, building or civil structure; or Section 65(30a) defined 'Construction of complex' means
(a) construction of a new residential complex are a part thereof; or
(b) completion and finishing services in relation to residential complex such as glazing, plastering, painting, floor and wall tiling, wall covering and wall papering, wood and metal joinery and carpentry, fencing and railing, Page 4 of 10 ST/28425/2013 construction of swimming pools, acoustic applications or fittings and other similar services; or
(c) repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services in relation to, residential complex;
6. It is an admitted fact the appellant was undertaking painting services to various types of customers for the residential flats houses, commercial industrial sites, etc., and charged service tax to the customers at the applicable rates. From the definitions given above, the services rendered by the appellant under no circumstances can be considered to be maintenance and repair services; while it clearly falls under 'Construction of Complex Service' as defined under section 65(30a), therefore we do not find any reason to accept the contention of the Commissioner in the impugned order that the services fall under the category of 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Services'. It is also pertinent to note that in appellant's own case vide Order-in-Original No. 166/2014-ST dated 30.12.2014 for the period from October 2011 to June 2012, the original authority had dropped the proceedings on the ground that the services rendered by the appellant are classifiable under 'Works Contract Services'.
7. Further, this Tribunal in the case of Shri Arun Samuel vs. CST: Final Order NO.20541/2026 dated 13.01.2026 held as follows:
"5.2 From the definition placed above, we find that the appellant is undertaking painting services as defined under Section 65(30a) of the Act, hence the question of demanding service tax under the category of 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Services' does not arise. Moreover, the appellant has been regularly filing ST-3 returns on the service element of the painting services after discharging the service tax under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services' as admitted by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Therefore, the question of Page 5 of 10 ST/28425/2013 suppression cannot be sustained in order to invoke the extended period of limitation.
6. In a similar set of facts, in the case of FK Enterprises Vs. CCE and ST Vadodhara-1 2023 (2) TMI 1042 CESTAT-Ahmedabad has observed as follows:
"4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the appellant admittedly carried out repairing/painting work in respect of plant, machinery, and building of their client. The service was provided along with the material used for painting work and the appellant also paid the VAT on the works contract. The only ground for denial of the payment of Service Tax under the works contract by the revenue is that the same is not covered under definition of works contract as provided under Section 65 (105) (zzzza) Finance Act, 1994, which reads as under.
"Works contract", for the purpose of section 65(105) (zzzza), means a contract wherein,-
(i) transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods, and
(ii) such contract is for the purposes of carrying out,-
(a) Erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery, equipment or structures, whether pre-fabricated or otherwise, installation of electrical and electronic devices, plumbing, drain laying or other installations for transport of fluids, heating, ventilation or air conditioning including related pipe work, duct work and sheet metal work, thermal insulation, sound insulation, fire proofing or water proofing, lift and escalator, fire escape staircases or elevators; or
(b) Construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof, or of a pipeline or conduit, primarily for the purpose of commerce or industry; or
(c) Construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof; or Page 6 of 10 ST/28425/2013
(d) Completion and finishing services, repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services, in relation to (b) and (c); or
e) Turnkey projects including engineering, procurement and construction or commissioning (EPC) projects;"
On reading of the above definition of works contract, we find that to cover the appellant's activity under works contract it is not necessary that the said activity should be carried out only in respect of new building. As per clause (b) in addition to construction of a new building there is another category "Civil structure and part thereof" primarily for the purpose of commerce or industry. This category is a very vast category, which covers the plants machinery building. The appellant has carried out the painting work on this plant, machinery, building. As regard this category there is no condition that such as civil structure or part thereof should be new. The clause (d) clearly specifies that any activity which is used for completion and finishing services, repairing, renovation or restoration or similar services in relation to (b) and (c) are covered under works contract service. The painting is clearly covered under term finishing service, repair, renovation or similar service. Since we stated above that a civil construction or a part thereof covers the plant machinery, building on which the appellant has carried out the painting work, the same is specified under clause (b) therefore, the painting work carried out on a civil structure or part thereof and also of a pipe line or conduit and undisputedly it is for the purpose of commerce or industry. The activity of the appellant is squarely covered under the definition of "works contract". Therefore, we are of the considered view that the appellant have correctly discharged the Service Tax under the head of works contract.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order is not sustainable, hence the same is set aside, appeal is allowed."
6.1 Also in the case of Spandrel Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad (supra) the Tribunal held as follows:
Page 7 of 10ST/28425/2013 "8. On the other hand, we find that the amendments which were brought in the Finance Act, 2005 with effect from 16-6-2005 to the services "Commercial or Industrial Construction" under section 65(25b) of the Finance Act, read as under:-
"(25b) 'commercial or industrial construction service' means-
(a) construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof, or
(b) construction of pipeline or conduit; or
(c) completion and finishing services such as glazing, plastering, painting, floor and wall filling, wall covering and wall papering, wood and metal joinery and carpentry, fencing and railing, construction of swimming pools, acoustic applications or fittings and other similar services, in relation to building or civil structure; or
(d) repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services in relation to, building or civil structure, pipeline or conduit, which is -
(i) used, or to be used, primarily for, or
(ii) occupied, or to be occupied, primarily with; or
(iii) engaged, or to be engaged, primarily in, commerce or industry, or work intended for commerce or industry, but does not include such services provided in respect of roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams."
It can be seen from the above clause (c) , services which have been rendered brought for the first time in the definition "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service". If it is so, the insistence of revenue that the services rendered by the appellants would fall in the 'Interior Decorator Service' is incorrect. We also find that the Board vide letter dated 27-7-2005 which was issued for clarifying the Scope of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' (after amendment), has categorically clarified as under:-
2) Post construction completion and finishing services such as glazing, plastering, painting, floor and wall tiling, wall covering and wall papering, wood and metal joinery and carpentary, especially if undertaken as an isolated or standalone contract, are Page 8 of 10 ST/28425/2013 also specifically included. Thus post construction completion and finishing services are specifically included in the definition of commercial or industrial construction service."
It can be seen from the above that the activities which had been undertaken, as enumerated in the clarification, have now been specifically included. This would indicate that prior to 16-6-2005, these were not included in the category of 'interior decorator service'. In a series of decisions of the Tribunal which laid down law that 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. For this purpose, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Chennai Telephones (BSNL) v. CCE [2007] 7 STT 52 (Chennal - CESTAT) has very clearly held that levy of leased circuit service was introduced only from 16-7- 2001 and it is not proper to demand service tax on said service for an earlier period under the category of 'telephone service'. In yet another case of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. v. CST [2008] 15 STT 1 (Ahd. - CESTAT) on a similar issue as to scope of new entries in Service Tax net, the Co-ordinate Bench, held as under, which we may reproduce:
"9. We also agree with the appellant's contention that once the new entry is introduced with effect from the date without disturbing already existing entries, it has to be held that the new entry was not covered by the previous entry. The reference in this regard is made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Board of Control For Cricket in India v. C.S.T., Mumbai - 2007 (7) S.T.R. 384 (Trib. - Mum.)."
9. In view of the above reasoning, it is held that the activities of the appellant during relevant period will not be covered under definition of 'interior decorator services', and we hold that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and we do so. The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any."
Page 9 of 10ST/28425/2013
7. In view of the above, we find that the services rendered by the appellant are clearly classifiable under 'Works Contract Services' and hence, the demands confirmed under category of 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Services' cannot be sustained.
8. Therefore, following our own decision, we are of the view that the services are rightly classifiable under 'Works Contract Service'; consequently, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Order pronounced in Open Court on 27.04.2026) (D.M. MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (R. BHAGYA DEVI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) rv Page 10 of 10