9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 351 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - services rendered to other cellular operators with reference to sharing of the network - dispute on availment of credit on the point that the cellular operators are not providing input services to each other and such service does not have any nexus with the output service rendered by the telecom operators - HELD THAT - This Bench in the case of appellants themselves relying on the judgment passed by Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the appellant s own case M/S BSNL, SALEM VERSUS CCE, SALEM 2013 (1) TMI 142 - CESTAT CHENNAI in which the issue was decided in favour of the appellants where it was held that ' The argument of the appellants that the premises where the equipment are used belong to BSNL and not to any other party and it is also used for completion of services originating from Salem also are strong arguments in favour of the appellants. Since Modvat credit is a substantial benefit, we are of the view that the impugned credit should not be denied on account of procedural defects of minor nature as pointed out by the Revenue.' The above decision has been accepted by the Revenue. It can be seen that various Benches of the Tribunal i.e Chandigarh, Allahabad and Chennai were unanimous on the issue in favour of the appellants. Appeal allowed.
Issues:
Dispute over availment of credit of service tax paid by the appellant on services rendered to other cellular operators for sharing of the network. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH involved a dispute regarding the availment of credit of service tax paid by the appellant, a telecommunication service provider, on services rendered to other cellular operators for sharing the network. The appellant, M/s BSNL, registered as an input service distributor, was involved in providing telecommunication and cellular network services under a license issued under the Central Telegraphic Act, 1895. The dispute arose concerning the inter-connection usage charges paid by cellular operators to each other, which were subject to service tax. The Department contended that such services did not have a nexus with the output service rendered by the telecom operators, leading to the disallowance of CENVAT credit by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Panchkula. The appellant argued that the issue had already been decided in their favor for the period 2007 to 2012 by the CESTAT in a previous order, which had been accepted by the Department without any appeal filed. Citing precedents, the appellant emphasized that the Department cannot take a contrary stand in proceedings on the same issue for the same assessee. The appellant also referred to judgments by other benches of the Tribunal, including Chennai and Allahabad, where similar issues had been decided in favor of the appellants. The appellant contended that the denial of credit was based on procedural defects rather than misutilization of ineligible credit. Upon considering the arguments and perusing the records, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment by the Chennai Bench, which had observed that there was no misutilization of credit and that the denial of credit was due to procedural defects of a minor nature. The Tribunal noted that various benches of the Tribunal, including Chandigarh, Allahabad, and Chennai, had unanimously decided in favor of the appellants on similar issues. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeal merited to be allowed and accordingly allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order disallowing the credit. In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH resolved the dispute over the availment of service tax credit by the appellant on services provided to other cellular operators for sharing the network in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and consistency in decision-making by the tax authorities.
|
