Industrial Construction Service limits clarified: residential-house and goods painting excluded, while commercial building finishing work remained taxable.

Services at residential houses where employees resided, and painting of goods, materials or other articles, were treated as outside Industrial Construction Service, so no service tax applied on those components. Painting of walls and floors of a commercial building, however, was treated as completion and finishing work within Industrial Construction Service and was not eligible for the 67% abatement under Notification No. 15/2004-ST, leaving only a reduced tax liability after permitted exemption. For limitation, non-filing of ST-3 returns and non-registration, without deliberate intent to evade, was insufficient to prove suppression or wilful misstatement, so the demand was time barred and the Revenue challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the services relating to residential houses, painting of goods/material/other articles, and painting of walls/floors of a commercial building were liable to service tax under Industrial Construction Service and whether abatement under Notification No. 15/2004-ST was available; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation on account of suppression or wilful misstatement.

Issue (i): Whether the services relating to residential houses, painting of goods/material/other articles, and painting of walls/floors of a commercial building were liable to service tax under Industrial Construction Service and whether abatement under Notification No. 15/2004-ST was available.

Analysis: Services rendered at residential houses where employees resided were not treated as Industrial Construction Service. Painting of goods/material/other articles other than building and civil structures was also held outside that category. However, painting of walls and floors of a commercial building fell within Industrial Construction Service and, being completion and finishing work, was not eligible for 67% abatement under Notification No. 15/2004-ST. After disallowing the abatement and allowing exemption up to the permitted limit, only a reduced tax liability survived.

Conclusion: The services relating to residential houses and painting of goods/material/other articles were not taxable under Industrial Construction Service, while painting of walls/floors of the commercial building was taxable and not entitled to the 67% abatement.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation on account of suppression or wilful misstatement.

Analysis: The only basis for alleging suppression was non-filing of ST-3 returns and non-registration. In light of the finding that no service tax was otherwise payable on the major components and the principle that suppression requires a deliberate intent to evade, mere omission to furnish correct information was insufficient to establish wilful suppression or misstatement.

Conclusion: The allegation of suppression or wilful misstatement was not sustainable and the demand was time barred.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, the order granting substantial relief to the assessee was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Suppression for limitation purposes must be deliberate and intended to evade tax, and services falling outside the defined taxable category cannot be brought to tax by expansive characterization.

---