The Commissioner Of Central Vs. Beau Monde'S Clinic

The Commissioner Of Central vs Beau Monde'S Clinic

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Decided Jun 12, 2007

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/45657

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/45657
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Judge: S Peeran, J T T.K.
Decided On: Jun 12, 2007
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Commissioner Of Central

Respondent

Beau Monde'S Clinic

Legal References

Reported In: (2007)8STR169

Excerpt

.....appeal arising from the order-in-appeal no.269/2005-ce dated 14.11.2005 by which the commissioner (appeals) has set aside the order-in-original no. 27/2005 dated 7.7.2005 demanding service tax on the ground that the assessee was carrying on the activity of electro homeopathy consultation and in the course of activity, he had undertaken hair bonding/hair weaving and also undertaken sale of wigs, clips, etc. the revenue has brought this activity under the category of 'beauty parlor'. the appellant's contention is that they were not carrying on the activity of fixing wigs but they were selling the wigs and doing electro homeopathy consultation. the revenue presumes that such activity is coming within the ambit of 'beauty treatment' under the head 'beauty parlor service'.the original authority confirmed the demand. however, the commissioner (appeals) after a detailed consideration noted that the plea of the appellant is just and proper. he noted that the appellants were not carrying on the activity as alleged but were only carrying on the sale of wigs. the commissioner (appeals) has observed that the services rendered by the appellant is nothing to do with face and beauty treatment, cosmetic treatment, manicure, pedicure or counseling service on beauty, face care or make up as stipulated in the act. the revenue contended in the appeal that the assessee were also carrying out 'fixing wigs' and therefore such activity would be coming within the ambit of hair bonding.2. the learned dr reiterates the 'grounds of appeal' and prays for confirming the order-in-original.3. the learned counsel submits that the ground raised in the appeal is a new one. there was no allegation in the show cause notice that the appellants were carrying on the activity of 'hair bonding'. the appellants had given statements that they were selling wigs and the customers come back after some time for repair of wigs. he submits that such activities cannot be brought within the ambit of 'beauty.....

Full Judgment

1. This Revenue's appeal arising from the Order-in-Appeal No.269/2005-CE dated 14.11.2005 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-Original No. 27/2005 dated 7.7.2005 demanding service tax on the ground that the assessee was carrying on the activity of Electro Homeopathy consultation and in the course of activity, he had undertaken hair bonding/hair weaving and also undertaken sale of wigs, clips, etc. The Revenue has brought this activity under the category of 'beauty parlor'. The appellant's contention is that they were not carrying on the activity of fixing wigs but they were selling the wigs and doing Electro Homeopathy consultation. The Revenue presumes that such activity is coming within the ambit of 'beauty treatment' under the head 'Beauty Parlor Service'.

The Original authority confirmed the demand. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) after a detailed consideration noted that the plea of the appellant is just and proper. He noted that the appellants were not carrying on the activity as alleged but were only carrying on the sale of wigs. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the services rendered by the appellant is nothing to do with face and beauty treatment, cosmetic treatment, manicure, pedicure or counseling service on beauty, face care or make up as stipulated in the Act. The Revenue contended in the appeal that the assessee were also carrying out 'fixing wigs' and therefore such activity would be coming within the ambit of hair bonding.

2. The learned DR reiterates the 'Grounds of Appeal' and prays for confirming the Order-in-Original.

3. The learned Counsel submits that the ground raised in the appeal is a new one. There was no allegation in the show cause notice that the appellants were carrying on the activity of 'hair bonding'. The appellants had given statements that they were selling wigs and the customers come back after some time for repair of wigs. He submits that such activities cannot be brought within the ambit of 'beauty treatment'.

4. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we agree with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s view that the assessee was not carrying on the activity of 'beauty treatment' as defined. They were only selling wigs and carrying on Electro Homeopathy consultation. The customers come back after some time for repair of wigs and such wigs were repaired. The Revenue has taken a new ground that they were carrying on hair bonding. This was not a ground originally taken in the show cause notice. The sale of wigs and repair of wigs cannot be considered to be coming within the ambit of 'beauty treatment'. Therefore there is no merit in the appeal and the same is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT · 2007 Same Parties The Commissioner Of Central vs Beau Monde'S Clinic Same Subject Excise Same Judge S Peeran, J T T.K.