Facts:
The appellants undertook the activity of plantation of grass, trees, shrubs in the factory area along with maintenance of lawns. On the basis that the appellants had directly or indirectly provided advice, consultancy and technical assistance in respect of beautification of space, Commissioner (Appeals) held that the activities were covered u/s. 65(59) i.e., interior decorator’s service. The appellants contested that they had executed the work and there was absence of any advice or consultancy for beautification of the space and therefore, the activity was not covered under interior decorator services. The department contended that there was a composite contract covering landscaping which included beautification by way of plantation and landscaping was covered under the definition of interior decorator.
Held:
Allowing the appeal, it was held that the work orders were for execution of various works and did not involve advisory, consultancy or technical assistance.