9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on order. Held that- it was found for what purposes the mobile phones were being used and there was no finding by the adjudicating authority except from the bills that mobile phones were not used by the employees for business purpose only. Thus it was found that the assessee had proved that the mobile phones were being given to the employees for the use of business purpose and not for any other purpose. Thus, the Cenvat credit availed by the assessee on mobile phone services was too be allowed and the impugned order was to be set aside. Thus the appeal is allowed. - E/1151 OF 2008 - A/760/WZB (MUM.) OF 2009/SMB/CI-V - Dated:- 9-12-2009 - ASHOK JINDAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Pradeeo Korde for the Appellant. Kishori Lal for the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding that mobile phones have been given to the employees as a perquisite and is treated as a 'fringe benefit' just like a staff car or a laptop or a housing facility. Therefore, an item given as a perquisite to an employee as part of remuneration package is a 'fringe benefit' and cannot be treated as an 'input service'. Aggrieved from the same the appellant is before me. 4. The ld. Consultant for the appellant submitted that the mobile phones are in the name of the appellant company and all the bills are to be paid by the appellant company. Moreover, these mobile phones are exclusively used by their officials for their business activity and not for personal purposes. All the calls made by the officials are for the business activity of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 is no finding by the adjudicating authority except from the bills that these mobile phones are not used by the employees for business purpose only. No statement of any employee is on record with regard to the use of the phones. Moreover, appellant company has given these mobile phones to their employee for the use of business purpose only, which was never controverted by the adjudicating authority through any evidence. I find that the appellant has proved that the mobile phones are being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
