2019 (2) TMI 91 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Levy of service tax – photography service – the service was brought within the service tax net with effect from 16.7.2001 – period in dispute is October 2002 to September 2006 – Held that:- Photography studio or agency means any professional photographer or a commercial concern engaged in the business of rendering service relating to photography. Undisputedly, the appellant is engaged in doing advertisement film and such other activities. He also renders service in the cinematographic field. A person who renders such service cannot be considered to be an amateur photographer as rightly concluded by the authorities below – Merely because the appellant does not have a studio or has own industry not registered as commercial concern would not take him out of the ambit of the photography service as he is a professional photographer – demand upheld.
–
Penalty u/s 78 of FA – Held that:- The appellant had entertained a reasonable view as to whether
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
dering service relating to photography. The department was of the view that the appellant has rendered photography service for the period October 2002 to September 2006 and has not discharged the service tax. Show cause notice was issued proposing to demand the service tax along with interest and also for imposition of penalties. After adjudication, the original authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 11,41,608/- along with interest and imposed equal penalty, giving the option of reduced penalty. A penalty of ₹ 1,000/- was imposed under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 also. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri J. Shankar Raman submitted that the appellant is an individual who is doing freelance photography and is not a commercial concern engaged in the business of rendering services relating to photography. Though photography service was brought into service tax net with effect from 16.7.2001,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
any service tax. It was his bonafide belief that he was not rendering any photography service since he was not rendering from fixed place like a studio. Therefore, he pleaded that the benefit of section 80 may be invoked to set aside the penalties, 3. The ld. AR Ms. T. Usha Devi supported the findings in the impugned order. She submitted that the appellant has collected huge amount as consideration for the photography service. He was engaged in making advertisement film which is a cinematographic film and various other photography services. The contention of the appellant that he does not own a studio and therefore would not come within service tax net cannot be accepted. The appellant is not an amateur photographer and as being a professional photographer would come within the ambit of the definition of photography service. She therefore submitted that the demand, interest and penalties are legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue to be considered is whether the activity o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
matographic field. A person who renders such service cannot be considered to be an amateur photographer as rightly concluded by the authorities below. Definitely such person who has been receiving such high consideration to the tune of ₹ 1,41,18,840/- for the period under dispute would fall into the category of professional photographer. Merely because the appellant does not have a studio or has own industry not registered as commercial concern would not take him out of the ambit of the photography service as he is a professional photographer. We therefore conclude that the demand raised as well as interest is legal and proper. The issue on merits with respect to the demand raised is held against the assessee. 7. The ld. counsel has vehemently argued to waive the penalty imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The authorities below have imposed an equal penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act. There is nothing brought out from evidence that appellant has suppressed
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =