CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH
Nice Color Lab
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur
FINAL ORDER NOS. 55434-55435 OF 2013
STAY ORDER NOS. 55855-55856 OF 2013
APPLICATION NOS. ST/STAY/631 & 679 OF 2012
APPEAL NOS. ST/303 & 317 OF 2012
JANUARY 29, 2013
ORDER
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
Both the stay petitions are disposed of by a common order and as the issue involved is identical.
2. After hearing both the sides, we find that the disputed issue relating to inclusion of cost of materials used for providing photographic services, which stands decided against the appellant by a Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aggarwal Colour Advance Photo System v. CCE [2011] 33 STT 33.
3. However, we find that the demand stands raised and confirmed by invoking the longer period of limitation. The Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Satyam Digital Photo Lab[2012] 34 STT 56 has held that when the law was declared against the assessee subsequently to the period involved, and when the earlier decision were in favour of the assessee, no suppression can be attributed to the appellant so as to justifiably invoked longer period of limitation. The said decisions stand followed subsequently in number of other appeals. One such reference can be made to the subsequent decision in the case of Shobha Digital Lab v. CCE [Final Order No. ST/449/2011, dated 23-8-2011] as also in the case of CCE v. Centre Point Colour Lab vide Final Order No. ST/526-527/2011 dated 4.10.2011.
4. Inasmuch as the issue is already settled by the above referred decisions, we find no justification for keeping the appeals pending for final disposal. We accordingly after dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit decide the appeal also by allowing the same. Stay petitions and appeals get disposed of in the above manner.
