https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207085 The case involved a dispute over whether the value of materials used by the respondents in providing photography services should be included in the gross amount charged for levying service tax. A Larger Bench decision determined that the cost of goods and materials should be included in the value of services. The Revenue's demand based on the extended limitation period was rejected due to the respondents' bonafide belief. The demand beyond the limitation period was deemed time-barred, and no penalty was imposed, with the case remanded for recalculating the duty demand within the limitation period. en-us Wed, 14 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Dec 2015 14:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207085 The case involved a dispute over whether the value of materials used by the respondents in providing photography services should be included in the gross amount charged for levying service tax. A Larger Bench decision determined that the cost of goods and materials should be included in the value of services. The Revenue's demand based on the extended limitation period was rejected due to the respondents' bonafide belief. The demand beyond the limitation period was deemed time-barred, and no penalty was imposed, with the case remanded for recalculating the duty demand within the limitation period. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 14 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207085