2011 (1) TMI 590

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o evidence was available on record to substantiate the above claims of the department - Further the appellants are not required under law to furnish the details of cell/mobile phones on which they had availed the input service credit as alleged by the department, which by no stretch of imagination can be averred as suppression of facts which necessitates invoking proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act - It is for the department to decipher and analyse the details of credit availed by the appellants in the monthly returns furnished to the department - Hence, the demand is clearly time barred. In any case input service credit is available to fixed telephone and mobile telephones given to the employees of a unit in the light of decis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppeals) who vide impugned order set aside the Order-in-Original on merits as well as on time bar. Hence the Revenue is in appeal. 3. Ld. JDR would submit that the credit availed by the respondents on the service tax paid on the mobile services is incorrect as the said mobiles were registered in the name of employees and on verification it was found that the bills were paid by the employees. It is also his submission that if the employees have paid for the services, the services were received by the employees and not by the assessee. It is also his submission that the respondents did not indicate the amount of credit availed against which mobile number of the employees and hence they suppressed the information from the revenue. 4. Ld. Coun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cell phones on which they had taken input service credit in their monthly returns submitted to the department and thereby had suppressed that facts. From the case records, it is observed that no evidence was available on record to substantiate the above claims of the department. Further the appellants are not required under law to furnish the details of cell/mobile phones on which they had availed the input service credit as alleged by the department, which by no stretch of imagination can be averred as suppression of facts which necessitates invoking proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act. It is for the department to decipher and analyse the details of credit availed by the appellants in the monthly returns furnished to the depa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X