9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposition of penalty - Held that: - the issue is interpretational in nature. Concerning the eligibility of credit on the parts used in the towers, there has been sufficient confusion in the matter. It is also not disputed that there was more than one view in the matter - penalty set aside - extended period of limitation also set aside. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of assessee. - ST/429/2012, ST/26070/2013, ST/25316/2013, ST/25945/2013 And ST/27250/2013 - A/31528-31532/2016 - Dated:- 10-11-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) And Sh. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Sh. Nagaraj Rao, Advocate for the Assessee. Sh. Nagraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue. [Order per: Madh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50/2013 Commissioner-III Vs BSNL, Warangal 2008-09 2009-10 05.09.2012 (by ADC) 36,93,932/- *There is another demand of ₹ 16,88,092/- of credit taken on invoices not produced for verification. 2. The main dispute relates to the eligibility of CENVAT credit on angles, channels and beams etc., used to erect the towers and pre-fabricated buildings on which transmission equipments were installed. 3. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the assessee appellant, Ld. Advocate Sh. Nagaraj Rao submitted that the appellants are engaged in the business of providing Telecommunication Services, and had availed CENVAT Credit of exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty. So also, for the same reason, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. 4. On behalf of the department, Ld. AR reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. The appeals in Sl. No. 1, 2 3 are filed by assessee/appellant contending that the tower plays a crucial role and is an integral part of the service without which required coverage cannot be obtained, hence these goods are used for erection of towers under Chapter 85.25 of CETA, 1985 Accordingly, they are capital goods and credit cannot be denied on the same. Department has taken the view that these goods are structural items falling under Chapter Heading 73.08 and not capital goods; that towers fabricated out of these goods cannot be trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and M/s Vodafone Essar Digilink India Ltd., Vs Commr of CE, Panchkula [2016-TIOL 873-CESTAT-CHD], we hold that the penalties imposed on the appellant on these cases will have to be set aside. For the same reason, the demand which is barred by limitation will require to be set aside, which we hereby do. However, demand for the normal period which is not hit by limitation, will sustain and is upheld. Penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 15 (4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is also set aside. Appeal disposed of on above terms with consequential reliefs, if any. 8. SL. No.4 5: These appeals are also on the same issue, however, in these cases Original Authority had disallowed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
