2015 (12) TMI 1108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for disposal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in providing "Radiographic testing services" to M/s. Aruna Machine Tools, Madurai, to identify the defect in castings and they are not doing any other work other than this service. The adjudicating authority in his OIO No. 33/2003-ST dated 24.11.2003 and OIO No. 106/2004-ST dated 31.12.2004, confirmed the demand of service tax under "Photographic Services (Radiographic Services)" of Rs. 7,84,914/- and Rs. 1,31,011/- for the period from 16.07.2001 to 31.03.2003 and 01.04.2003 to 30.06.2003 respectively and also imposed penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of th Finance Act, 2004. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the orders of the adjudicating aut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... produced a sample copy of the film used by the appellant. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. AR reiterates the findings of the OIA and he drew the attention of the Bench to para 6.2 and 6.4 of the OIO and submits that the photographic services under Section 65 (78) includes lazer photography or fluorescent photography. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the Board's Circular and given his findings at para-7 saying that the Board's Circular talks about the Radiography technique used only in the medical field and not used in industries etc. 6. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the short issue involved in this case relates to the classification of service rendered by the appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ied that x-ray and CT scan done using fluorescence photography are not photography studios or agencies in common parlance and does not come within the ambit of tax. We find that the lower appellate authority in his findings held that the Board's Circular is not applicable to the present case on the ground that the said clarification is only applicable to medical field. However, we find that there is no such mention in the Boards Circular that it is applicable only in the medical field. Further we find that the new service "Testing and Technical service" was specifically introduced under Section 65(105)zzi of the Finance Act. It clearly covers the nature of the service rendered by the appellants and the Ld. Advocate submits that they have t....