https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210559 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the cost of materials used in providing photography services should not be included in the value of services for levying service tax. The demand for service tax beyond the normal limitation period was deemed invalid due to a bona fide belief regarding the non-inclusion of material costs. The penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside as there was no mala fide intent, directing a recalculation of the demand within the normal limitation period. The appellant was only liable to pay service tax for the period falling within the statutory limitation period. en-us Tue, 23 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210559 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the cost of materials used in providing photography services should not be included in the value of services for levying service tax. The demand for service tax beyond the normal limitation period was deemed invalid due to a bona fide belief regarding the non-inclusion of material costs. The penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside as there was no mala fide intent, directing a recalculation of the demand within the normal limitation period. The appellant was only liable to pay service tax for the period falling within the statutory limitation period. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 23 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210559