9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent. ORDER 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant against the order of denial of Cenvat credit on Mobile Phone Services. 2. The facts of the case are that during the course of audit, it was observed by the officers that the appellant has availed Cenvat credit on mobile phone services and as per CBEC Circular No. 59/8/2003, dated 20-6-2003, the credit of Service Tax paid on mobile phones ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary evidence, it cannot be accepted that the mobile phones were used in or in relation to manufacture and therefore the CBEC Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST, dated 23-8-2007 is of no help to the assessee. 3. On an appeal to the lower appellate authority, he confirmed the denial of CENVAT credit holding that mobile phones have been given to the employees as a perquisite and is treated as a 'fringe benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for perusal. 5. On the other hand, the ld. SDR submits that it is the burden of the appellants to establish that these mobile phones have been used by them only for the business purposes, which they have failed to prove and accordingly, the Cenvat credit on mobile phone services is not available to the appellant. To support this contention, he place reliance on the Tribunal's decision in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have been used for business as well as for the personal purposes by the officials of the appellant company. As the appellant does not have any control over the use of mobile phone when given to the employees. On examination of the mobile phone bills filed by the appellant, I find that from face of the bills it cannot be determined that for what purposes the mobile phones are being used and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
