Prima facie classification of furniture fixing under construction services led to conditional stay with pre-deposit.

Supplying and fixing furniture items to a concrete structure was treated, prima facie, as falling within Commercial and Industrial Construction Services because the activity was linked to completion and finishing work in relation to a building or civil structure. On that classification view, complete waiver of pre-deposit was declined, as the appellant did not show a sufficient basis for unconditional stay. Interim relief was therefore granted only against a limited pre-deposit, with stay of the remaining demand subject to compliance and the substantive dispute left open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the work of supplying and fixing furniture items to a concrete structure was, prima facie, classifiable under Commercial and Industrial Construction Services; (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to complete waiver of pre-deposit and unconditional stay.

Issue (i): Whether the work of supplying and fixing furniture items to a concrete structure was, prima facie, classifiable under Commercial and Industrial Construction Services.

Analysis: The definition of Commercial and Industrial Construction Services was examined with particular reference to completion and finishing services and similar activities in relation to building or civil structure. On a prima facie view, fixing furniture items to the concrete structure appeared to fall within the scope of the taxable service relied upon by the department.

Conclusion: The activity was held to be, prima facie, covered under Commercial and Industrial Construction Services.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to complete waiver of pre-deposit and unconditional stay.

Analysis: Since a prima facie case against the appellant was found on classification, complete waiver was not considered justified. The appellant was required to make a limited pre-deposit as a condition for stay of the remaining demand.

Conclusion: Complete waiver was denied and the appellant was directed to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000, upon which stay of the remaining demand was granted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was not finally decided on merits, but interim relief was granted only on the condition of a limited pre-deposit, leaving the substantive dispute open for further consideration.

---