2009 (10) TMI 179 - AT - Service Tax

Photography services-Notification No. 12/2004-ST, dated 10.9.2004- The issue involved is regarding service tax on the services rendered by the appellant on photography services. Whether assessee had to be given benefit of cost of material consumed by it while rendering photography service. In the light of the decision of Commissioner v. Shilpa Colour Lab Civil Appeal Nos. 257-258 and 3599 of 2008, dated 23-4-2009 , held that the appellant has to be given benefit of cost of material consumed by them while rendering photography services. - Whether assessee was to be directed to pre-deposit part of service tax liability, arrived at after giving benefit of cost of material, and on such compliance, Commissioner (Appeals) would take up appeals and pass an order on merit? Held that- we direct the appellant to pre-deposit the sum.

Summary

Issues: Service tax liability on photography services rendered by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. Pre-deposit Amounts: The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit amounts related to Service Tax and various penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) had directed specific pre-deposit amounts for each appeal, which the appellant failed to comply with, resulting in dismissal of the appeals. The appellant argued that the lower authority did not consider the value of materials supplied by them, citing relevant legal precedents in their favor.

2. Legal Submissions: The appellant referred to a decision by the Bench in the case of Sudha Digital Images v. CCE, upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Shilpa Colour Lab, to support their claim that the cost of materials consumed while rendering photography services should be considered to determine the service tax liability.

3. Decision: After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found the issue to be narrow and proceeded to dispose of the appeals without requiring pre-deposit. The Tribunal acknowledged the settled law by the Supreme Court regarding the benefit of cost of material consumed by the appellant in providing photography services. The appellant was directed to pre-deposit a specific amount within a set timeframe, with compliance to be reported to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further proceedings on the merits of the case, ensuring principles of natural justice are followed.

4. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision focused on granting the appellant the benefit of the cost of materials consumed while providing photography services, in line with established legal principles. The directive for pre-deposit and subsequent compliance reporting aimed to facilitate a fair consideration of the appeals on their merits, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.