9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etation of the definition of service viz., Photography Service . There are various judgments on this issue and the appellant s stand is also that their activity of processing and printing out of photographs from native supplied by their client is in the category of advertisement films, for this reason also, the issue involved is interpretation of law. The suppression of fact cannot be alleged against the appellant. In the present case, the demand pertains to the period 2002-03 and 2003-04 whereas the show-cause notice was issued on 17.7.2007 which is much after the normal period - the entire demand is time barred - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 2613 of 2010 - Final Order No: 20116/ 2022 - Dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the negative supplied by their client amounts to Photography Service or otherwise. The appellant in their appeal have taken alternate grounds. They submit that their activity is in the nature of advertisement films and not photographs as defined under Section 65(78) of the Act and hence, they are not liable to obtain registration as a service provider as required under Section 65(79) of the said Act during the period in question. It is their submission that Photography Service covers only motion picture photography also known as cinematography to make films and nowhere in the Act the processing of advertisement film is mentioned. There is difference between motion picture photography and advertisement film. Motion film means a full-leng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G audit and the data of Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet. Therefore, in the absence of any suppression of fact, the demand raised under longer period will not sustain. In support of this, they placed reliance on the following case laws: (i) CCE, Kanpur vs. Taj Tours Travels: 2009 (16) STR 273 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) CCE, Raipur vs. Vishal Agencies: 2009 (15) STR 195 (Tri.-Del.) (iii) Sridhar Santhanam vs. CCE, Chennai : 2009 (14) STR 756 (Tri.-Chennai) (iv) HML Agencies (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Mangalore: 2009 (14) STR 626 (Tri.-Bang.) (v) Institute of Chartered Fin. Analysts of India vs. CCE, Hyderabad-II: 2009 (14) STR 220 (Tri.-Bang.) (vi) Rolex Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Bangalore: 2009 (13) STR 147 (Tri.-Bang.) ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
