Case Law Details
Commissioner Of Service Tax Vs Prime Focus LTD. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court of India recently upheld the analysis of the definition of ‘Video Production Agency’ and ‘Video-Tape Production’ by CESTAT in a service tax case involving Commissioner of Service Tax vs. Prime Focus LTD.
The case revolved around the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994, defining ‘Video Production Agency’ and ‘Video-Tape Production’. Both parties presented their arguments regarding the nature of services provided during Video-Tape Production.
Upon a conjoint reading of the definitions and considering the use of the words “services relating thereto,” the Supreme Court upheld CESTAT’s interpretation, stating that Video-Tape Production involves services such as editing, cutting, and coloring after recording is done. The appeal was dismissed, and the defined terms are applicable only until 01.07.2000.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Delay condoned.
We have heard Mr. Balbir Singh, learned ASG, who has drawn our attention to the definition of ‘Video Production Agency’ in Section 65(119) and the definition of ‘Video-Tape Production’ in Section 65(120) of the Finance Act, 1994 to contend that the analysis of the said definitions made by the Tribunal is incorrect. In that regard, it was pointed out that what is of importance is the nature of services rendered during the course of Video-Tape Production Agency and looked at from that prospective, the order of the Tribunal is incorrect.
Per contra, it was pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that what is of significance in the definition of ‘Video-Tape Production’ is ‘the process of any recording of any programme, event or function on any device and services relating thereto’. In other words, if the process of recording is absent then, merely rendering any services would not arise as such. It was contended that the impugned order would not call for any interference.
On a conjoint reading of the definitions of the ‘Video Production Agency’ and ‘Video-Tape Production’, we find that the services such as editing, cutting, coloring etc. is only after recording is done of any programme, event or function on a magnetic tape or any other media or device. This is clear from the use of the words “services relating thereto” and such a Video-Tape Production when done by any professional videographer or any commercial concern engaged in the business of rendering such services is a ‘Video Production Agency’.
Having regard to the expressed words “services relating thereto” and the circular dated 09.07.2001, paragraph ‘2’, we find that the Tribunal has rightly interpreted the said sections.
The Civil Appeal is, hence, dismissed.
It is needless to observe that the aforesaid definitions are relevant only till 01.07.2000.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
