2019 (6) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... egular Beauty Parlour Services inasmuch as the same are provided under the guidance of Doctors and Dermatologist - HELD THAT:- The type of activities undertaken by the appellant is the essential character to classify their services either under Beauty Parlour Services or Cosmetic or Plastic Surgery Services. The invoices raised by them indicating the type of services are required to be examined and verified. Similarly, the appellants stand that they are working under the medical doctors and the Dermatologists is also required to be examined - matter on remand. Appeal allowed by way of remand.. - Service Tax Appeal No. 55013 OF 2014 - Final Order No. 50650/2019 - Dated:- 6-5-2019 - MS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. B .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under the said category against the proprietorship unit is not warranted. Though, the said plea of the appellant stands taken note of by the adjudicating authority but by observing that M/s Clinic Dermatech has shown rental income in their balance sheet, he has proceeded ahead to confirm the service tax. 3. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that it is not clear as to whether the service tax deposited by Sh. Varun Ratra was in respect of the same premises or not. He further submits that the same premises can be rented to different tenant and the service tax deposited by the Proprietor may belong to some other premises. 4. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides, we find .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : i) Commr. of C.Ex. Cus. Vadodara-I vs. New Look Cosmetic Laser Center -2009 (14) STR 27 (Tri. Ahmd). ii) New Look Cosmetic Laser Centre, vs. Commissioner of Cus (I) Mumbai -2006 (200) ELT 336 (Tri. Mumbai) iii) Commr. Of Cus, Delhi-II vs. Bausch and Lomb Eyecare India Pvt. Limited - 2017 (355) ELT 556 (Tri. Del.) However, learned Advocate fairly agrees that the attention of the adjudicating authority was not drawn to the said decisions of the Tribunal and there is no verification of the facts as regards the type of services being provided by the appellant, which are reflected in the invoices issued by them. He has drawn our attention to the Board Letter referred in New Look cos .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X