2008 (7) TMI 294 - AT - Service Tax

Judicial discipline inclusion of value of material consumed in taxable value of Photography Service - issue is fully settled in assessee s favour by large number of judgments - None of the judgments decided by the Tribunal has been appealed before SC - department has accepted the ratio of these judgments - subordinate authority is bound by the judgments of the higher authority - in view of Not. No. 12/2003-ST & Clarification No. F/233/2/2003-CX, value of the materials consumed is excludible

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over Service tax payable on Photographic Services.
2. Failure of lower authorities to consider Tribunal rulings.
3. Applicability of judgments in similar cases.
4. Appeal based on settled legal position.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Dispute over Service tax payable on Photographic Services
The appeal arose from a confirmation order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Thrissur Division, demanding Rs. 70,950 as Service tax on Photographic Services not assessed during a specific period. The appellant argued that the value of materials consumed in providing the service was excluded as per Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. and a Board's Clarification. The lower authorities did not accept the appellant's submissions despite producing relevant documents for verification.

Issue 2: Failure of lower authorities to consider Tribunal rulings
The appellant contended that the lower authorities failed to consider Tribunal rulings on similar issues, which were in favor of the appellant. The Commissioner (A) did not follow the Tribunal's rulings and rejected the appeal, except for setting aside the penalty. The learned Counsel argued that the Commissioner (A) showed judicial indiscipline by not following settled Tribunal rulings and failing to distinguish the Fuji Colour World case from the current case.

Issue 3: Applicability of judgments in similar cases
The Tribunal noted that the issue was conclusively settled in favor of the appellant by numerous judgments, including the case of CCE, Mysore v. Crystal Colour Lab. The Tribunal highlighted that none of the judgments on the issue had been appealed before the Supreme Court, and the department had accepted the rulings. The Tribunal criticized the lower authorities for not accepting the Tribunal's settled judgments and emphasized that subordinate authorities are bound by higher authorities' judgments.

Issue 4: Appeal based on settled legal position
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant. The Tribunal reiterated the importance of following established legal principles and judgments, emphasizing that lower authorities must adhere to the decisions of higher authorities without the need for reminders.

This judgment highlights the significance of consistency in legal interpretation, the binding nature of Tribunal rulings on lower authorities, and the need for adherence to established legal principles in tax disputes.