2016 (12) TMI 286

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Ms. Neha Garg, DR, For Respondent Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa : Nobody appeared for the appellant. Accordingly, we have heard ld. Departmental Representative and have gone through the impugned orders. 2. The demand to the tune of Rs. 24,847/- stands confirmed against the appellant who is a provider of photographic service, on the ground that the value of the material used by him, while pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of CCE Vs. Centre Point Colour Lab - 2014 (34) STR 126 (Tr.-Del.), para 5 & 6 of the said decision is being reproduced below:- "5. However, we note that period involved in the present appeals is from 1-7-2003 to 31-3-2005 and show cause notice were raised on 22-9-2005 in the case of M/s. Centre Point Colour Lab and on 3-4-2006 in the case of M/s. Agrawal Photo Finish. As such, the demand stands....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....against the respondents by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal delivered on 11-8-2011. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) has observed that when there is a bona fide doubt as regards the non-excisability of the goods due to divergent views of the High Courts extended period of five years cannot be in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es issued beyond the period of limitation would not stand inasmuch during the relevant period, there was sufficient material for the assessee to entertain a bona fide belief that the value of raw material used would not form part of the value of services. By holding so, the matter was sent back for requantifying the demand falling within the period of limitation. The Bench further observed that on....