2014 (8) TMI 337

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 Respondent : None PER : Rakesh Kumar The respondent are providers of photography service. The period of dispute in this case is from September 2003 to March 2005. The point of dispute is as to whether the service tax is to be charged on the gross amount charged by the respondent from their customers or on the net amount charged after excluding the cost of paper and chemicals used i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1994 and beside this, penalty of equal amount was imposed on them under Section 78 ibid. However, on appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), the above order of the Joint Commissioner was set aside and the appeal was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 29/12/2008 against which this appeal has been filed by the Revenue. 2. None appeared for the respondent, though a notice....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....We have considered the submissions of the learned DR and have gone through the records of this case. 5. So far as the case on merits, the issue stands decided in favour of the department by Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Agarwal Colour Advance Photo System vs. CCE, Bhopal (supra) and therefore we hold that the respondent were liable to pay service tax on the gross amount charged an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Foundation Jt. Venture vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) and also in the case of Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) has held that when on a particular issue during a particular period there was divergence of views on account of conflicting judgments of the Tribunal or High Courts and the assessee had paid tax in a....