https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767966 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal challenging service tax demands under Interior Decorator Service for periods prior to June 2007 and from June 2007-September 2009. The tribunal held that services involving carpentry, false ceiling, flooring, painting, electrical and civil work constituted composite works contracts, not Interior Decorator services. For pre-June 2007 period, following SC precedent in Larsen Toubro, composite works contracts were not taxable under Interior Decorator service. Post-June 2007, such services should be taxed under Works Contract Service, not Interior Decorator service. The demand was legally unsustainable due to incorrect classification and the adjudicating order exceeded the show cause notice scope. en-us Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:31:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767966 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal challenging service tax demands under Interior Decorator Service for periods prior to June 2007 and from June 2007-September 2009. The tribunal held that services involving carpentry, false ceiling, flooring, painting, electrical and civil work constituted composite works contracts, not Interior Decorator services. For pre-June 2007 period, following SC precedent in Larsen Toubro, composite works contracts were not taxable under Interior Decorator service. Post-June 2007, such services should be taxed under Works Contract Service, not Interior Decorator service. The demand was legally unsustainable due to incorrect classification and the adjudicating order exceeded the show cause notice scope. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767966