TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Service Tax Claim Rejected Due to Time Limitation</h1> <h3>Kaya Designer Launge Versus CGST C.E & C. C-Bhopal</h3> Kaya Designer Launge Versus CGST C.E & C. C-Bhopal - 2019 (25) G. S. T. L. 98 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Applicability of Section 11B for the refund of Service Tax.2. Interpretation of activities falling under the category of 'Fashion Designing.'3. Time limitation for claiming refund under Section 11B.Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 11B for the refund of Service Tax:The appellant filed a refund claim for the Service Tax paid, contending that the activities undertaken by them did not fall under the definition of fashion designing. The lower authorities rejected a part of the refund claim on the grounds of time limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Larger Bench's decision in the case of Veer Overseas Ltd v/s Commissioner clarified that Section 11B applies strictly to any refund of Service Tax, even if paid under a mistaken notion. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim falling within the time limit under Section 11B.2. Interpretation of activities falling under the category of 'Fashion Designing':The appellant argued that the activities of stitching charges and cost of raw materials do not attract Service Tax under the category of Fashion Designing. The Circular by CBEC clarified that tailors involved only in stitching clothes are not covered under the tax net. However, designing activities like creating Jodhpuri, blazer, etc., at the request of customers fall within the category of fashion designing and are liable for Service Tax. The Tribunal held that Service Tax is not payable on stitching charges or raw materials but is applicable to amounts recovered for specific design activities.3. Time limitation for claiming refund under Section 11B:Regarding the issue of limitation, the Tribunal affirmed that the Service Tax paid for activities falling under the category of fashion designing is subject to the time limit prescribed by Section 11B. The appellant's argument that the payment was due to a mistake of understanding was dismissed based on the decision of the Larger Bench. The Tribunal directed the Original Authority to restrict the refund claim within the time limit under Section 11B, excluding amounts related to design of garments.In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the Tribunal upholding the rejection of a part of the refund claim due to the time limitation under Section 11B and directing a remand to the Original Authority for further proceedings based on the interpretation of activities under the category of fashion designing.
TaxTMI 