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.

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 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