9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. The appellant corporation have huge business risk, and have to be vigilant at all times. - As regards the cable operator's services, I hold the same as allowable input service, as the same is utilized in various offices of the appellant for being up-dated with the stock and money market. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/210/12 - Final Order No. A/494/2015-WZB/SMB - Dated:- 27-8-2014 - Anil Choudhary, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Ms Bijal Chandarana, CA For the Respondent : Shri B K Iyer, Supdt. (AR) ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary: This appeal is filed by the appellant against Order-in-Original No. 02-03/ST-II / WLH /2012 dated 13.01.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued for the extended period of limitation. The Appellants replied to the above show cause notices submitting that the CENVAT credit is rightly available to them considering the provisions of Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. At the time of personal hearing also, the Appellants submitted that they were under the bona fide belief that the CENVAT credit on the above mentioned input services was rightly available to them. Considering the submissions of the Appellants, the Ld. Commissioner (adjudicating authority) allowed the CENVAT Credit with respect to certain input services and disallowed the rest. The details of the same are presented herein below:- Nature of Service Credit Allowed Cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of CENVAT Credit on services in dispute was with the department right from 2004 onwards. In spite of that the department failed to issue show cause notice within the time frame of one year. Further, the said show cause notice was issued without specifically invoking the extended period of limitation. The Appellants relied on various judgments wherein it has been held that where the facts are known to the department, extended period cannot be invoked. 3.1 She further submits the Order-in-Original has traversed beyond the scope of show cause notice on two aspects:- a. The show cause notice has not invoked the extended period of limitation whereas the OIO invokes the same and confirms the demand. b. The show cause notice does not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts relied on various case laws wherein the CENVAT Credit of residence telephone connections was allowed to them. The Appellant submitted that they have installed Television sets at its various branches for the purpose of the stock quotes being regularly flashed and business channels being displayed. This helped the clients to take prompt informed decisions about transacting in particular scripts. The said input service has a direct nexus with the output service provided by the Appellants and hence, they prayed that the CENVAT Credit of ₹ 1,166/- pertaining to cable operator services be allowed to them. 3.4 The Appellants also submitted that considering the amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2011 in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, the CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I hold that the first show-cause notice is time barred in part, for the period prior to 30.9.2007, as the return for half year ended 30.9.2007 was still not due. It is not in dispute that the assessee filed returns regularly giving required particulars. 5.1 So far insurance service availed for insuring business risk (insurance to safeguard tax for infidelity and forging of securities), I hold the same to be allowable input service. 5.2 So far input service - Telephone connection is concerned, at residence of senior officials, the same is held to be essential input for the appellant. The appellant corporation have huge business risk, and have to be vigilant at all times. 5.4 As regards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
