TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (6) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant also relies on clarification of the board dated 7-4-2004. It is being pointed out that in terms of this clarification "cost of input material consumed/sold by the service provider" is eligible for deduction. The ld. Consultant also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Adlabs v. CCE - 2006 (2) S.T.R. 121 (Tri.-Bang.) and submitted that Tribunal has held that, in regard to photographic services, deduction is available for photographic paper and material. 4. The contention of the ld. SDR is that the claim is contrary to the legal provisions as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.K. Jidheesh v. Union of India - 2006 (1) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.) = 2005 (71) RLT 505 (S.C.) 5. The period of dispute i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erms of the notification 12/2003-S.T., dated 20th June 2003, the exemption was in respect of in put material consumed/sold by the service provider to the service recipient while providing the taxable services available. However, the exemption is available only if the service provider maintains the records showing the material consumed/sold while providing the taxable service. The value of such material should also be indicated on the bill/invoice issued in respect of the taxable service provided." 8. It is to be noted that even though the clarification mentioned "input material consumed", (which is beyond the scope of the exemption notification) it also stipulates that "the value of such material should also be indicated on the bill/invoic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of C.K. Jidheesh (supra) and the Court ruled as under :- "There is one further difficulty in the way of the petitioner. This court has, in the case of Rainbow Colour Lab & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 385, held that contracts of the type entered into by persons like the petitioner are nothing else but service contracts pure and simple. It is held that in such contracts there is no element of sale of goods. The judgment is binding on this Court. In view of this judgment, the question of directing the Respondent to bifurcate the receipts into an element of goods and the element of service cannot an ddoes not arise. We see no substance in the contention that ....