9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l waiving of the pre-deposit in the case of BSNL-respondent cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse in any manner. - Decided against Revenue. - STA No. 1 of 2014 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 3-2-2014 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Anita Chaudhry,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent : None JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, the 1944 Act ) read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 (for brevity, the Act ) against the order dated 15.10.2013, Annexure A.4 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (in short, the Tribunal ) in ST/STAY/58665/2013, claiming fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for further investigation. The assessee was summoned to appear before the Superintendent (Prev.) Central Excise Ambala to submit certain documents, which were examined in detail. The assessee is raising bills and collecting payments regarding IUC charges. It has availed the Cenvat credit of the service tax paid against the bills raised by the other telecom operators considering them as the input services and has utilised the same on the services provided by them. The assessee was summned to appear on 25.9.2012 and submit the details of payments made and received by them to other telecom operators. The assessee submitted the details of Cenvat credit availed by it during the period 2007-08 to 2011-12. According to the revenue, the input servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Manipal Advertising Services Pvt. Limited's cases (supra) was misplaced as the same were distinguishable. Moreover, nothing has been provided to safeguard the interest of the revenue. No hardship had been shown by the assessee. He placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Krishan Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs, Rohtak and another, CWP No.2667 of 2009, decided on 19.2.2009. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do no find any merit in the appeal. 5. The Tribunal while ordering complete waiver vide order dated 15.10.2013, Annexure A.4 had noticed as under:- Prima facie, this area is covered by the decision of the Chennai Bench in BSNL vs. CCE Trichy. The decision was rendered in the context of CENVAT cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
