2018 (8) TMI 1688

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... kept pending endlessly, I have no option but to take up the issue for decision on merit, even in the absence of the representative of the appellant. 2. Heard Ld. DR for the Revenue. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the stitching of cloths and occasionally carrying out embroidery or making of designs for suit etc, as per the requirements of the customers. They recovered amount by way of stitching charges, cost of raw material, charges for making art work and embroidery etc. The appellant paid Service Tax on the amounts collected by them under the category of "Fashion Designing" defined under Section 65 (43) of the Finance Act, 1994 which includes "any activity relating to conceptualizing, outlining, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rement to pay such tax. On merits also, Ld. DR justified the order and submitted that all the activities carried out by the appellant will be falling within the definition of "Fashion Designing". 6. After hearing the Ld. DR and perusal of record, it is noticed that the Service Tax was paid by the appellant on the amounts recovered by them from their customers. The amounts recovered included the stitching charges, the cost of the materials used, and also amounts collected by them for certain designs undertaken by the appellant at the request of customers. The CBEC has clarified by Circular No. F. No. B/1/2002/TRU of the Finance Act, 2002 dated 01/08/2002- which has clarified as follows:- A point has been raised as to whether tail....