TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... based on Notification No. 12/2003 which exempts "Value of goods and materials sold by the service provider". The ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant also relies on clarification of the board dated 7-4-2004. It is being pointed out that in terms of this clarification "cost of input material consumed/sold by the service provider" is eligible for deduction. The ld. Consultant also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Adlabs v. CCE - 2006 (2) S.T.R. 121 (Tri.-Bang.) and submitted that Tribunal has held that, in regard to photographic services, deduction is available for photographic paper and material. 4. The contention of the ld. SDR is that the claim is contrary to the legal provisions as well as the judgment of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pril 2004 of the Board:- "I am directed to refer to your representation forwarded to Finance Minister vide letter dated 11th March 2003 and state that in terms of the notification 12/2003-S.T., dated 20th June 2003, the exemption was in respect of in put material consumed/sold by the service provider to the service recipient while providing the taxable services available. However, the exemption is available only if the service provider maintains the records showing the material consumed/sold while providing the taxable service. The value of such material should also be indicated on the bill/invoice issued in respect of the taxable service provided." 8. It is to be noted that even though the clarification mentioned "input material consum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal." 10. The above view of the Tribunal would not be correct since the issue as to whether photographic service included any sale of materials had come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of C.K. Jidheesh (supra) and the Court ruled as under :- "There is one further difficulty in the way of the petitioner. This court has, in the case of Rainbow Colour Lab Anr. v. State of M.P. Ors. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 385, held that contracts of the type entered into by persons like the petitioner are nothing else but service contracts pure and simple. It is held that in such contracts there is no element of sale of goods. The judgment is binding on this Court. In view of this judgment, the question of directing the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
