2012 (6) TMI 117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mmissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the demand of Service tax of Rs. 2,57,351.50, Revenue has filed the present appeal.   2. We have heard Shri R. K. Gupta, learned SDR for the Revenue and nobody appeared for the respondents.   3. As per the facts on record, the respondents are engaged in providing photography services to their customers. The dispute in the present appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Agrawal Colour Photo Industries v. Commissioner [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, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itation. The Bench further observed that on account of bona fide belief, no penalty is required to be imposed. By applying the ratio of the above decision to the facts of the present case, we hold that the demand beyond the period of limitation is time-barred and no penalty is required to be imposed. Matters are remanded for requantifying the duty demand falling within the period of limitation, if .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X