https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373341 The Tribunal, comprising Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, held that the services provided by the appellants, including computer graphics, digital restoration, and reverse telecine, did not fall under Video Tape Production Services. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the appellant's case and emphasized that the statutory provisions must be interpreted literally. As the activities of the appellants did not meet the criteria for Video Tape Production Services, the demand for service tax under that category was set aside. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief as per law. en-us Mon, 17 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jan 2019 07:10:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373341 The Tribunal, comprising Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, held that the services provided by the appellants, including computer graphics, digital restoration, and reverse telecine, did not fall under Video Tape Production Services. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the appellant's case and emphasized that the statutory provisions must be interpreted literally. As the activities of the appellants did not meet the criteria for Video Tape Production Services, the demand for service tax under that category was set aside. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief as per law. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 17 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373341