ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The stay application and appeal are taken up together for disposal as the issue involved in the appeal is covered by this bench ruling rendered in the case of Shilpa Color Lab v. CCE Calicut 2007 (5) STR 423 (Tri-Bang). The revenue has proceeded against the appellants who are professional photographers and has demanded service tax on the elements of inputs used in the photography services. The appellants have taken a plea that they have already discharged the service tax on the photography services. Therefore, the view taken by the revenue that they are required to show the details of the inputs in the invoices is not correct. In the present case, the appellants have taken a plea that they have shown the details of inputs in the invoice, therefore they ought not to have been denied the benefit of Board Circular and the Notification. The Commissioner has not accepted their pleas. Learned Counsel submits that the issue was dealt with by this bench in great detail in a batch appeals in the case of Shilpa Colour Lab Final Order No. 10 to 18 dated 30.10.2006 wherein this aspect was considered in great detail and this bench has opined that because of photography film, magnet type or other storage devise are excluded from purview of service tax when they are sold to the clients. Learned Counsel submits that in the present case, there is no dispute about their having maintained invoice and therefore the judgment clearly applies to the facts of the case. Learned DR reiterates the departmental view.
2. On a careful consideration, we find that the submission made by the counsel is in terms of records and are verifiable. We find that ruling rendered in the case of Shipla colour lab (supra) is clearly applicable to the facts of the case. Respectively following the ratio of the same we set aside the impugned and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court)