2007 (11) TMI 150 - AT - Service Tax

Photography Services - appellants are entitled to claim the benefit of deductions in respect of inputs used in the photography services - Tribunal has already held that the details of inputs used need not be mentioned in the invoices/bills issued by them, as there is no specific clause in the Notification 12/03 - cost of raw materials and cost of outside printing deductible from gross turnover/amounts received - impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of benefit under Notification No. 12/2003 for Photography Services due to not maintaining separate bills for raw materials and services.

Analysis:
The appeal arose from Order-in-Appeal Nos. 6 to 9/2007-S.T. denying the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003 to the appellants. The Commissioner affirmed the Order-in-Original Nos. 9/2006, 10/2006, 11/2006, and 14/2006 confirming Service tax. The appellants, registered under 'Photography Services,' were alleged to have paid Service tax on the gross amount charged instead of the billed/received amount for services rendered. The impugned order upheld the charge due to the appellants not maintaining bills showing the cost of raw materials and services separately, leading to denial of benefit.

The learned Counsel argued that similar issues were considered in previous cases by the Tribunal, such as Shilpa Colour Lab v. CCE, Calicut; Adlabs v. CCE; Agarwal Colour Photo v. ACCE; and Indian Arts Bureau v. CST. The Tribunal had ruled that the Notification did not require mentioning inputs used in the invoices. The Counsel contended that the judgments cited were applicable, and the appeals should be allowed.

The learned JDR contended that the previous judgments were distinguishable and pointed out an error in the Tribunal's ruling in Shilpa Colour Lab. However, the learned Counsel highlighted that Revenue had not filed for rectification of mistake or appealed to the Apex Court in the Shilpa Colour Lab case, indicating the citations' validity.

After careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the issue had been addressed in previous cases like Shilpa Colour Lab, Adlabs, Agarwal Colour Photo, and Indian Arts Bureau. Relying on these precedents, the Tribunal held that appellants were entitled to deductions for inputs used in photography services without the need to mention them in invoices. As there was no specific clause in the Notification requiring such details, the appeals were allowed based on consistent rulings, setting aside the impugned orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting consequential relief, if any, based on the established precedent that the details of inputs used need not be mentioned in invoices for Photography Services under Notification No. 12/2003.