9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was bonafide doubt about the inclusion of the cost of material in the cost of services - no malafide can be attributable to the appellant so as to invoke the extended period of limitation. - demand beyond the normal period of limitation dropped Penalty - held that - while re-quantifying the demand falling within the period of limitation, no penalty is required to be imposed on the appellants inasmuch as we have already held that there is no malafide on the part of the assessee - Appeal disposed off. - ST/759 of 2007 & ST/5 of 2008 - Final Order Nos. ST/526-527/2011-CU(DB) - Dated:- 14-9-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Appearance: Shri Sunil Kumar, SDR for the Appellants Shri A.K. Batra and Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Revenue by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Agrawal Colour Photo Industries vs. Commissioner, vide Misc. order No. ST /129/11 dated 11.8.2011. It stands held in the said decision of the Larger Bench that the value of services in relation to photography would be the gross amount charged including the cost of goods and material used and consumed in the course of such services. 5. However, we note that period involved in the present appeals is from 1.7.2003 to 31.3.2005 and show cause notice were raised on 22.9.2005 in the case of M/s. Centre Point Colour Lab and on 3.4.2006 in the case of M/s. Agrawal Photo Finish. As such, the demand stands raised by invoking the extending period of limitation. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bout the inclusion of the cost of material in the cost of services. If that be so, no malafide can be attributable to the appellant so as to invoke the extended period of limitation. 6. We find that the issue of limitation was considered at length in an identical matter in the case of CCE Raipur vs. Satyam Digital Photo Lab vide Final Order No. ST/503-504/11 dated 20.9.11, it was held that the notices issued beyond the period of limitation would not stand inasmuch during the relevant period, there was sufficient material for the assessee to entertain a bonafide belief that the value of raw material used would not form part of the value of services. By holding so, the matter was sent back for requantifying the demand falling within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
