2006 (5) TMI 512

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nesh Havanur ORDER Dr. S. L. Peeran (Judicial Member) The appellant is required to pay service tax under two headings (a) an amount of ₹ 41,69,972 on account of use of raw materials in the photographic services (b) an amount of ₹ 31,04,826 being the service tax on development of processing of photographic films under the heading 'Photography Services'. 2. With regard to the first i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... they do not come within the ambit of service tax. He contends that the department had six months time after they furnishing the details to make queries with the concerned studios, who were covered under the Service tax Act and paying duty to verify the fact of they being sub-contractor and the duty having been discharged by the said principal studios. He submits that no such investigations were do .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lant having rendered the said photography services. If the stand of the assessee is that their sub-contractors and the principal studio has paid the duty, then they should have produced the evidence along with proof of payment of tax. For lack of evidence, they cannot plead before the Tribunal that the revenue has not discharged their burden. He prays for putting the appellants on terms. 5. On a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X