2011 (8) TMI 651

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Appellants Per Archna Wadhwa (for the Bench):   Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the demand of Service tax of Rs.2,28,947/-, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. We have heard Shri Sonal Bajaj, learned SDR for the Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondents. 3. As per the facts on record, the respondents ar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y against the respondents except a part of the tax restricted to Rs. 27,011/- and a penalty of identical amount, with which we are not concerned in the present appeal. 4. We find that the issue on merits is no more res integra and stands settled in favour of the Revenue by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Agrawal Colour Photo Industries vs. Commissioner, vide Misc. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pect of inputs, material consumed / sold to the service recipient. Apart from the above clarification, the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shilpa Colour Lab as also in the case of Adlab Labs etc. were in favour of the assessee. As such, it can be safely concluded that there could be bonafide belief on the part of the respondents as regards non inclusion of the material cost in the ....