TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir customers are not marketable commodities in the open market and as goods they have no value to persons other than the specific customer who provides the input content. Hence, it is clear that, the printed material have no value as independent goods - The Applicant, therefore, cannot be said to be supplying goods classifiable under heading 4911 of the Tariff Act. Ruling:- The activity carried out by the Applicant “printing of photographs from media” is classifiable under SAC 9989 and taxable at 12% under Serial No. 27 (i) of N/N. 11/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28/06/2017 (1135 – FT dated 26/06/2017 of the State Tax), as stood amended vide N/N. 31/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 13/10/2017 (1795 – FT dated 13/10/2017 of the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exposure or with Durst Theta 76 HS Digital Printer by means of LED exposure, thereby transferring the content from an electronic device to printed material as per the customers requirements. 3. Supply of printed pictures and photographs and similar items, reproduced with the aid of computer or any other device, is classifiable under Heading 4911 of the First Schedule of the Custom Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the the Tariff Act ), which is aligned to the GST Act for the purpose of classification. Heading 4911 of the Tariff Act classifies Other [i.e. not earlier specified] printed matter, included printed pictures and photographs; such as Trade advertising material, Commercial catalogues and the like, printed Posters, C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fers to several judgments, which are claimed to have a bearing on this issue. A careful perusal of the judgments reveals that, most of them do not have any bearing to the instant case. In the case of State of Karnataka etc Vs. M/s PROLAB and Others, and in the case of C.K. Jideesh vs UOI activities of Photo Labs are considered to be Works Contract . However, the activity of Printing does not come under Works Contract under Section 2(119) of the GST Act. Hence, the judgements are not found to be relevant to the instant case. In the case of Rainbow Colour Lab [(2000) 2 SCC 385] the Apex Court held that the dominant intention of the photo lab is provisioning service of printing where the supply of paper and chemicals are purely inci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
