2008 (11) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Famous Color Lab. (P) Ltd., Versus CCE, Ludhiana M/s. Shivam Color Lab., Versus CCE, Ludhiana M/s. Foto Fast Color Lab., Versus CCE, Ludhiana M/s. Amul Studios & Color Lab., Versus CCE, Ludhiana Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate, for the Appellants. Shri A.K. Madan, D.R., for the Respondent. [Order per M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) ] -1.1. These 7 appeals (ST-449 to 455 of 2006) arise out of Order-in-Revision No.1/ST/Commissioner/LDH/06 dated 16.6.2006. 1.2. These 11 appeals (ST-204 to 214 of 2008) arise out of Order-in-Revision No. 1-11/ST/Commissioner/LDH/08 dated 8.1.2008. 1.3. All these appeals involve common issue and, therefore, are being dealt with by a common order. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the service and sale elements can be split up. That being so, we do not find any merit in the submission of the Revenue that the decision in BSNL case cannot be treated as an authority on the issue of service tax. If the photography service is a 'works contract', it would follow that it involves the element of both sale and service, and the sale portion of the activity or transaction cannot be included in the taxable value of service. There cannot be any doubt, in view of sub-clause (b) of clause (29-A) of Article 366, that deemed sale of the materials takes place in the rendering of photography service and, therefore, the value of the materials cannot be included while computing the value of the service. 'Sale' and &#....