<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (10) TMI 162 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3569</link>
    <description>In photographic services, the value of materials and consumables used or sold was deductible from taxable value under Notification No. 12/2003-ST, because the Tribunal had already settled the valuation issue in earlier decisions allowing such deductions. The Commissioner (Appeals) followed that settled view after accepting the assessee&#039;s evidence on materials used, and the Tribunal held that judicial discipline required adherence to its own precedent in the absence of any stay or higher-court reversal. A contrary departmental clarification and reliance on C.K. Jidheesh did not displace that position, as that decision concerned constitutional validity rather than this valuation question.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42921" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 162 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3569</link>
      <description>In photographic services, the value of materials and consumables used or sold was deductible from taxable value under Notification No. 12/2003-ST, because the Tribunal had already settled the valuation issue in earlier decisions allowing such deductions. The Commissioner (Appeals) followed that settled view after accepting the assessee&#039;s evidence on materials used, and the Tribunal held that judicial discipline required adherence to its own precedent in the absence of any stay or higher-court reversal. A contrary departmental clarification and reliance on C.K. Jidheesh did not displace that position, as that decision concerned constitutional validity rather than this valuation question.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>