9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8/2010-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 11-8-2010 - Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY : Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K.P. Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. This appeal is against disallowance of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 15,328/- holding that when the landline telephone not been installed in the factory premises, the appellant is not entitled to cenvat credit of the service tax paid on such services. On the ground on which the disallowance has been made by the ld. Appellate Authority is that the input service was neither used for providing an output service nor used directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture of the final product. Except this ground, there is no evidence comin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise v. Excel Crop Care Ltd. reported in 2008 (12) S.T.R. 436 (Guj.) is altogether on different premises. He further submits that residential telephones connected are no way concerned with the manufacturing activity nor that is directly or indirectly related to taxable activity, so also that has no bearing to the activities enumerated in the law. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. Certainly the amount disallowed is only Rs. 15,328/-. The amount is immaterial but the cause of disallowance is material. When such an aspect could be appreciated the allegation in show cause notice was enquired. The show cause notice says that scrutiny of details of service tax credit on telephone and mobile phone services related to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t examined. Only a summary disallowance was proposed by show cause notice because law has prescribed admissibility of cenvat credit on taxable services. The authorities have also not examined whether the telephones were anyway directly or indirectly in or in relation to activities enumerated by law was used bringing any evidence to record. The show cause notice also depicts that it was apparent examination by the authority. It may be stated that what that may be apparent may not be real. Also it may be stated that suspicion shall not be substitute of evidence. When there is a total laxity in the examination, contention of the ld. DR today although being Revenue conscious submission does not permit to sustain the orders of the authority belo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
