2007 (8) TMI 264 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax on the elements of inputs used in the photography services - no dispute about maintaining details of inputs in the invoice held that that inputs (magnet type or other storage devise) are excluded from purview of service tax when they are sold to the clients assessee s appeal allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether professional photographers are liable to pay service tax on elements of inputs used in photography services.
2. Whether the appellants have already discharged the service tax on the photography services.
3. Whether the appellants should show details of inputs in the invoices.

Analysis:
1. The issue in this case revolves around the liability of professional photographers to pay service tax on the elements of inputs used in photography services. The revenue demanded service tax from the appellants, who argued that they had already paid the tax on the photography services. The appellants contended that they should not be required to show the details of inputs in the invoices. The appellants relied on a previous bench ruling in the case of Shilpa Color Lab, which excluded certain items from the purview of service tax when sold to clients. The appellants maintained that they had shown the details of inputs in the invoice, thus claiming the benefit of a Board Circular and a Notification. However, the Commissioner did not accept their arguments.

2. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the submissions made by the counsel were supported by records and verifiable. The Tribunal noted that the ruling in the case of Shilpa Color Lab was applicable to the facts of the present case. Following the ratio of the previous ruling, the Tribunal set aside the impugned decision and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal also mentioned that consequential relief would be granted if necessary.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that professional photographers are not liable to pay service tax on certain elements of inputs used in photography services, as per the precedent set by the earlier ruling in the case of Shilpa Color Lab. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of maintaining detailed records and invoices to support such claims and granted relief to the appellants based on the applicable legal principles.