2005 (1) TMI 682

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 3,22,261/-. However they paid service tax Rs. 1,49,290/- only thus resulting in short payment of Rs. 1,72,971/-. A show cause notice was issued demanding service tax of Rs. 1,72,971/- short paid during the relevant period along with interest and proposing to impose penalty. The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,72,971/- along with interest, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/ under Section 76 and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,72,971/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellants have preferred this appeal and have contended that: (i)      They are engaged in the business of photography and in the course of rendering suc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... they have made complete and true declaration including deductions claimed as well as gross and net values (minus deductions) of services rendered. Hence, interest is not payable and penalty is not justified. 5. I have gone through the records of the case, grounds of appeals and submissions made at the time of personal hearing. 6. The issue in dispute is the allowable deductions from taxable value of services rendered by a provider of photographic services. 7. It is clear from Section 67(ii) read with Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 26-6-2003 and subsequent clarification vide Circular F.No. 233/2/03-CX-4 dated 7-4-2004 that deduction from the gross value of services rendered is very much available for goods and art....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cult and is not in normal account/trade practice. 9. It appears therefore that Circular F. No. 233/2/2003 quoted above puts a limitations on operation of Notification No. 12/03-ST which allows a substantive relief to the provider of service tax. Operation of notification No. 12/03 has to be given precedence. In holding so I place reliance on the decision of Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Chamber of Commerce - 1986 (25) E.L.T. 867 (S.C.) and Suksha International and Nuthan Gems and others - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 503 (S.C.) and a number of others decision of Tribunal holding that substantive benefits cannot be denied for procedural lapses and where reasonable/relatable other evidences exist in favo....