2010 (10) TMI 488

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ereto and equal amount of penalty. 2. Learned Advocate for the appellants placing reliance in the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Adlabs v. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R. 121 and decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichur v. Surabhi Colour Lab, Civil Writ Petition No. 263/08 dated 23-4-09 as well as in Commissioner of Cus. & Central Excise, Meerut-I v. M/s. Technica Colour Lab. in Civil Appeal No. 7060/09 dated 21-7-09 submitted that duty liability has been imposed upon the appellants ignoring the documentary proof regarding the material used in the course of rendering service only on the ground that the same is not revealed from the invoices and the bills. Ref....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es that the authorities below had essentially considered the absence of reference to the value of materials alleged to have been sold in the course of rendering services under the invoices and bills and therefore, no credence has been given to the certificate and points sought to be raised by the appellants that the value disclosed in the invoices out of the total value disclosed, 67% thereof related to the goods supplied in the course of rendering the services. The impugned order also discloses that the appellants had produced certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant which revealed that the liability of duty of 70% of the total value on the materials supplied under contract. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal in Shilpa Colour Lab case [2007 (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ooks stated to have been produced by the appellants discloses that certain portion of the invoices revealed the material in relation to the services, considering the value of the material alleged to have been sold in the course of rendering such services, it was necessary for the authority to consider this aspect. 6. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ravi Gupta v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi reported as 2010 (20) S.T.R. 264 (S.C.) = 2009 (237) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) is to the effect that merely on establishing a prima facie case, interim order of protection need not be passed. It is necessary for the party to make out the case which would justify the order of the status quo. Similarly, in Siliguri Municipality & Others v. ....