9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rivastava (CA) for Appellant Shri Mohd Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa After hearing both the sides we find that the appellant is engaged in the activity of manual enlargement of photographs negatives and also runs Collection Centre for collection of exposed photo films received from various clients for getting some processed from different colour labs. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en thousand one hundred and thirty six only) alongwith confirmation of interest and imposition of identical penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In addition penalty of Rs. 12,000/-(Rs. Twelve Thousand only) and of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) were imposed under Section 77 of the Act read with Section 70. Further penalty of Rs. 2,72,248/- (Rs. Two lakhs seventy two thousand tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the Master Circular dated 10 May, 2007 was issued, which again was to the same effect. He further submits that in the year 2008, they have sought clarification from the Board as to whether the said services of running a collection centre are classifiable under Photography Services or Business Auxiliary Services and the Board vide its letter dated 16.07.2008 clarified that the services provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same. He also prays for setting aside the penalties. 5. As is clear from the fact that the Board's Circular dated 27.12.2001 referred (supra) has clarified the issue that the collection centre who merely collects the exposed film from their clients and gets it developed from other processing lab, will not be covered by the Photography Services. Though the appellant was having a photography stu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, which the learned advocate has agreed to pay. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for quantification of the demand falling within the period of limitation. Further, as we have observed that there was no mala fide on the part of the appellant, we find no justification to uphold the penalties imposed upon him under various Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
