9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y finding as to how said finding of Original Authority are not sustainable - demand not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. ST/3842/2012-CU[DB] - ST/A/71218/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 22-6-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa. Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Sahib P. Satsangee, Chartered Accountant, for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 275-ST/APPL/KNP/2012 dated 31/08/2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax (Appeals), Kanpur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reating the designs and preparing patterns for costumes, apparels, garments, clothing accessories, jewellery or any other articles intended to be worn by human beings are leviable to Service Tax under Fashion Designing Service [Section 65(105)(zv)] and service in relation to planning, design or beautification of spaces is leviable to Service Tax under interior decorator's service [Section 65(105)(q)]. Design services, other than the above specifically mentioned taxable services, like furniture design, aesthetic design, consumer or industrial products, logos, packaging, production of three dimensional models, etc. will be taxable under this category. The appellant, further, contended that the appellant was manufacturing Footwear an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Sahib P. Satsangee, appearing on behalf of the appellant. He has submitted Written Submission and relied on the above stated C.B.E.C. Circular. He has, further, submitted that Original Authority through Order-in-Original dated 21/02/2012 has relied on the said C.B.E.C. Circular dated 28/02/2007 and decided the issue and ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any reason why said C.B.E.C. Circular was not applicable in the present case and how the said findings of Original Authority are not sustainable. 4. Heard the ld. A.R. for Revenue, who has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, we find that the findings by the Original Authority were based on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
