TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue was of the opinion that the appellants are rendering Photography Services and have not discharged applicable service tax on the same; a Show Cause Notice dated 30.11.2016 was issued to confirm service tax of Rs.1,20,66,134/- along with interest and penalty; the proposals in the Show Cause Notice were confirmed by order dated 26.04.2018 passed by Joint Commissioner, CGST, Faridabad; on an appeal filed by the appellants, Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 28.09.2018 upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence, this appeal. 2. Ms. Krati Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits elaborate written submissions and submits that the issue no longer res integra having been decided by this Bench in the case of Venus Albums Co. Pvt Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... • M/s. Vasanth Color Laboratories Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore Service Tax-1, 2022-TIOL-437-CESTAT-BANG • M/s. Picasso Digital Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, East-Delhi (Vice-versa), 2024-VIL-179-CESTATDEL- ST 3. Shri Aneesh Dewan, learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that this Tribunal has already held that the activity undertaken by the appellants amounts to manufacture and is exempt from payment of Central Excise duty and therefore, service tax cannot be demanded. We find that the Bench observed in the case of Venus Albums Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the present case, it is to be determined as to whether the case would fall under category (2) or category (4). We have already taken note of printing process. A cursory look into the same may suggest, as held by the Tribunal, that GI paper is meant for wrapping and the use thereof did not undergo any change even after printing as the end use was still the same, namely, wrapping/packaging. However, a little deeper scrutiny into the facts would bring out a significant distinguishing feature; a slender one but which makes all the difference to the outcome of the present case. No doubt, the paper in-question was meant for wrapping and this end use remained the same even after printing. However, whereas blank paper could be used as wrapper for a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Press Patra Prakashan (supra) has examined the issue and observed as under :- "..............We do not think that we can read in this observation of Calcutta High Court, a decision that printing activity carried on by a publishing house may amount to manufacture does not ipso facto exclude the activity of printing from the scope of the expression "manufacture or produce an article or thing" as occurring in Section 80-I(2)(iii) of the Act. The contention of Mr. Sahni that an assessee who is engaged on job work basis cannot be considered as a manufacturer is also premised on the observations made by the Calcutta High Court in the case of A. Mukherjee & Co. (supra) and as stated e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is a manufacture. Hence, the assessee having engaged themselves in manufacturing process is entitled to claim investment allowance." 19. In view of the above judicial pronouncements and the activity undertaken by the appelant Chapter Heading 4911, is very much clear that the appellant has undertaken the activity of printing photograph on plain printing paper and thereafter bind them and selling them as photo books. The said activity amount to manufacture and the appellant is paying VAT and therefore, the said activity merit manufacturing activity and classified under Chapter 4911 and the appellant has classified accordingly. 20. We also take note of the fact that after introduction of GST, the classification of the same h....