2009 (3) TMI 26 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal excludes material cost from taxable value in photography services

The Tribunal ruled in favor of excluding the value of materials used in photography services from the taxable value of the service. Citing the precedent ... Whether the value of material for the process of developing and printing of Photography would be excludible from the taxable value of service - issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Delux Colour Lab Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that value of the materials cannot be included while computing the value of service. “Sale” and “Service” can not stand in the same box. Sale cannot be treated as service and vice versa – therefore, in view of this decision, appeal is allowed Issues:1. Whether the value of material for the process of developing and printing of Photography is excludible from the taxable value of service.Analysis:The dispute in this case revolves around the question of whether the value of material used in the process of developing and printing photography should be excluded from the taxable value of the service provided. The appellant had filed a refund claim which was initially sanctioned by the Dy. Commissioner but later rejected by the Commissioner through a Revision Order.Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the case of Delux Colour Lab Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur, where it was established that works contracts involve elements of both sale and service, which can be separated. The Tribunal emphasized that if photography service is considered a 'works contract,' it involves both sale and service elements, and the sale portion cannot be included in the taxable value of the service. It was further clarified that as per sub-clause (b) of clause (29-A) of Article 366, deemed sale of materials occurs in the rendering of photography service, and therefore, the value of materials should not be factored in while calculating the value of service.Based on the precedent and legal interpretation provided, the Tribunal concluded that the value of the material used in the photography service should indeed be excluded when determining the value of the service. Consequently, the Revision Order was set aside, and the original authority's decision to sanction the refund claim was reinstated. The appeal was allowed, and consequential relief was granted to the appellant.In summary, the judgment clarified the treatment of material value in the context of photography services, emphasizing the distinction between sale and service elements in works contracts. By following established legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal ruled in favor of excluding the value of materials from the taxable value of the service, providing relief to the appellant in this case.