Extended period of limitation would not stand for demanding tax on photography service

CESTAT, New Delhi Bench

Laxmi Colour Lab

V/s.

Commissioner of Central Excise

FINAL ORDER NO. ST/A/267 of 2012-CUS.

APPEAL NO. ST/482 OF 2008

MARCH 6, 2012

ORDER

S.S. Kang, Vice-President – Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand of service tax on the ground that the appellants, for the purpose of paying service tax, did not include the value of materials used by them for providing such service. The contention of the appellant is that demand is time-barred as the show-cause notice was issued on 22.9.2006 demanding service tax for the period 16.7.2001 to 31.3.2005 by invoking extended period on the ground of suppression. The appellant submitted that the Tribunal, in CCE v. R.K. Photo studio vide Final Order Nos. ST/503-504/2011 dated 25.8.2011, after taking into consideration the Board Circular F. No. 233/2/2003-CX dated 7.4.2004, held that the demand beyond the normal period is not sustainable, in such type of case.

2. The appellant also submitted that they were regularly submitting the returns showing the taxable services.

3. We find that the Tribunal in the case of’ CCE Satyam Digital Photo Lab [2012] 34 STT 56/[2011] 16 Taxmann.com 220 (New Delhi – Cestat) as also in the case of R.K. Photo Studio (supra) held that extended period of limitation would not stand for demanding for on this issue during the relevant period. In view of the above, we find that the demand is time-barred and we set aside the demand and the appeal is allowed.

NF