9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a (for the Bench): Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the demand of Service tax of Rs.2,28,947/-, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. We have heard Shri Sonal Bajaj, learned SDR for the Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondents. 3. As per the facts on record, the respondents are engaged in providing photography services to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax restricted to Rs. 27,011/- and a penalty of identical amount, with which we are not concerned in the present appeal. 4. We find that the issue on merits is no more res integra and stands settled in favour 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice recipient. Apart from the above clarification, the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shilpa Colour Lab as also in the case of Adlab Labs etc. were in favour of the assessee. As such, it can be safely concluded that there could be bonafide belief on the part of the respondents as regards non inclusion of the material cost in the value of services. The issue stands decided agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices. If that be so, no malafide can be attributable to the appellant so as to invoke the extended period of limitation. Inasmuch as the entire period involved under the present appeal is beyond the normal period of limitation, we are of the view that the demand is hit by time bar. We accordingly, reject the Revenue's appeal on the above terms. Cross Objection is also disposed of. (Pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
