Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Beau Monde'S Clinic on 12 June, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007[8]S.T.R.169
ORDER S.L Peeran, Member (J)
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.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court)