TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (10) TMI 178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ST/254/2008 CCE, Tirupathi v. P.V. Narayana Reddy 16/2008 (T) ST dated 29-2-2008 4,58,500/- 9,17,000/- 2. ST/255/2008 CCE, Tirupathi v. P.V. Narayana Reddy 17/2008 (T) ST dated 29-2-2008 1,99,140/- 3,98,280/- 2. I heard both sides. 3. The respondents during the relevant time were providing the services of photography. They excluded the cost of materials provided to their service receiver from the gross receipt. Revenue proceeded against them on the ground that the cost of materials cannot be excluded. The alleged short payment of service tax was confirmed. Interest was also demanded under Section 75. Penallies were imposed under Sections 76 and 78. The respondents approached the Commissioner (Appeals). I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts have been completed and after the dissolution of the firm, Revenue cannot take any action for revision of the assessment and there is no provision for the same. 5. As regards the second issue, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned orders. He has come to the conclusion that there has been no suppression of facts, as the respondents had been filing the ST-3 returns regularly. The said returns have been scrutinized by the Department. 6. As regards the merits of the case, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.K. Jideesh v. UOI reported in 2006 (1) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.), he had concluded that the respondent could not exclude the value of the materials from the gross ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of a dissolved firm does not entitled it or its partners from not proceeding against for recovery of tax liabilities. (ii) When ST-3 returns were filed, they were assessed on the basis of information contained in the said returns. When new facts came to light due to reason of suppression of facts etc., with intention to evade payment of service tax the Act provides for re-assessment and demand of differential service tax. As the SCN was issued within time limit provided, the Commissioner (Appeals) finding that the demand is time-barred is not correct. In the light of the above reasons the OIA passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside. 8. The learned Advocate for the respondent stated that the partnership was dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....render of the registration certificate has been contemplated. The relevant provision read as under: "(7) Every registered assessee, who ceases to provide the taxable service for which he is registered, shall surrender his registration certificate immediately" Subsequently, vide Notification No. 5/2006 dated 1-3-2006 sub-rule (8) was inserted as under: "(8) On receipt of the certificate under sub-rule (7), the Superintendent of Central Excise shall ensure that the assessee has paid all monies due to the Central Government under the provisions of the Act, and the rules and the notifications issued thereunder, and thereupon cancel the registration certificate." 10. Earlier, proceedings were initiated against R.K. Color Lab & Studio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e member Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. UOI reported in 2006 (2) S.T.R. 161 (S.C.). Several other case-laws on the issue had also been cited. They are as follows: (a) Shilpa Color Lab & others v. CCE - 2007 (5) S.T.R. 423 (Bang.) (b) Adlabs v. CST - 2006 (2) S.T.R. 121 (Bang.) (c) Shri Roopchaya Colour Studio v. CCE - 2008 (11) S.T.R. 125 (d) CCE v. Express Colour Lab - 2008 (9) S.T.R. 126 (Bang.) (e) CCE v. Crystal Colour Lab - 2008 (10) S.T.R. 26 (Bang.) (f) Digi Studio v. CCE - 2008 (10) S.T.R. 31 (Bang.) (g) Jyoti Art Studio v. CCE - 2008 (10) S.T.R. 158 (Bang.). 12. On a very careful consideration of the issue, I find that the Commissioner has decided two points in favour ....