9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. L. Mythili, Advocate - For the Assessee Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) - For the Revenue ORDER Per Bench 1. The issue in both appeals being connected, they are heard together and disposed by this common order. The parties are hereafter referred to as assessee and department for the sake of convenience. 1.1 The assessees are engaged in providing photographic services. The said services were brought under service tax net w.e.f. 16.07.2001. Till 30.06.2003, the assessee was discharging service tax on the said services including the cost of the material used by them in providing the services. W.e.f. 1.7.2003, the assessee claimed aba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o arrive at the cost of goods sold at the time of raising invoices, the cost details being available only subsequently, the assessee from October 2004 stopped availing the benefit of Notification 12/2003. The period involved is July 2003 to September 2004. The Ld. Counsel submits that appellant during the period had found it very cumbersome to follow the procedure of the notification No.12/2003; that during the disputed period, there were various conflicting judgments on the issues as to whether cost of material has to be included in the total taxable value for discharging service liability on photographic services. She submitted that the issue was highly doubtful and debated during the disputed period and litigations were pending before va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur of the assessee wherein it is held that service tax is not leviable on the cost of the materials used in the services. On such score, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has made out a case on the ground of limitation. Countering the allegations of contravention of Section 11D, the ld. counsel submitted it has been held in number of cases that there is no time limit prescribed under Section 11D, and the time limit provided under Section 11A would apply to demand under Section 11D also. She relied upon the decisions in the case of Ani Elastic Industries Vs UOI - 2008 (222) ELT 340 (Guj.), Thandava Co.op Sugars Ltd Vs CCE - 2006 (205) ELT 1020 (Tri-Bang) and Tamil Nadu Asbestos (Pipes) Vs CCE - 2007 (238) ELT 473 (T). T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
