M/S Agrawal Colour Photo Industry Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1043673
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnMar-08-2013
AppellantM/S Agrawal Colour Photo Industry
RespondentCommissioner of Central Excise
Excerpt:
cea 3/13 8.3.2012. shri sumit nema, advocate, for the appellant. shri r. pohankar, advocate for respondents. heard on ia no.1208/2013 an application for seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order. it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that against a common order the present appeal and cea no.1/13 and cea 2/13 have been filed but certified copy of the impugned order has been filed in cea 1/13. it is submitted that on the aforesaid ground the appellant may be exempted from filing certified copy of the impugned order. prayer made by the counsel for the appellant is not opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents hence it is allowed. appellant is exempted from filing certified copy of the impugned order in this case. heard on the question of.....
Judgment:

CEA 3/13 8.3.2012.

Shri Sumit Nema, Advocate, for the appellant.

Shri R.

Pohankar, Advocate for respondents.

Heard on IA No.1208/2013 an application for seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order.

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that against a common order the present appeal and CEA No.1/13 and CEA 2/13 have been filed but certified copy of the impugned order has been filed in CEA 1/13.

It is submitted that on the aforesaid ground the appellant may be exempted from filing certified copy of the impugned order.

Prayer made by the counsel for the appellant is not opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents hence it is allowed.

Appellant is exempted from filing certified copy of the impugned order in this case.

Heard on the question of admission.

This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1.

Whether while providing photography service whether the use of the paper upon which an image is printed using certain consumables and chemicals, being incidental to the provision of service, amount of sale of goods in terms of Article 366 (29A) (b) of the Constitution and whether value of photography service shall be determined in isolation of cost of such goods?.”

2. Whether the term 'sale' appearing in exemption Notified No.12/03-ST dated 20.06.03, is to be given the same meaning as given by Section 2(h) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with section 65(121) of the Finance Act, 1994 or this term would also include the deemed “sale”.

as defined by Article 366(29)A) (b) of the Constitution?.”.

Notice on behalf of respondents is accepted by Shri R.

Pohankar Advocate.

Heard on IA No.1054/2013 an application for stay of recovery proceeding: Notice of this application is accepted by Shri R.

Pohankar, Advocate.

He prays for three weeks' time to file reply.

Prayer is allowed.

In view of the order passed in CEA 1/13 no fresh order is required in this matter on IA No.1054/2013 .

Be listed for hearing alongwith WP No.7178/2006, CEA No.1/2013 and CEA 2/2013 for analogous hearing.

C c as per rules.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) JUDGE JUDGE Ag