9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide Show Cause Notice dated 03.06.2011. Order-in-Original dated 30.03.2012 came to be passed thereafter confirming the proposed disallowances. The appellant having met with the same fate in its first appeal before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli, has assailed the same by this appeal. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ld. Advocate Shri. V.S. Manoj appeared for the assessee and Ld. DC (AR) Ms. T. Usha Devi appeared for the Revenue. 3. During the course of arguments, Ld. Advocate pointed out that the issues involved have already been considered and decided in favour of the assessee in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 40643/2016 dated 25.04.2016 reported in 2016 (43) S.T.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , use of aircraft is to be considered as a bare requisite for business purposes and held that any service tax paid on the services for the maintenance of aircraft is admissible as credit. The Appellate authority has erred in holding that the dispute is not regarding ownership of the helicopter, but whether the services were utilized by the appellant's unit. In the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel has filed copy of invoices raised by the appellant company on other companies for the usage of Helicopter and Service Tax has also been collected under the category 'Business Auxiliary Service'. There is no requirement under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which defines 'input service' that the usage has to be in relation to a particul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the reason that, "there is every reason to believe that his consultancy service is not meant for the exclusive use of the appellants unit alone" in the show cause notice without elaborating as to the reason for the said belief is unsustainable. The show cause notice is the foundation for any proceeding. In this case, the allegation is too vague and therefore, the appellant's contention to the contrary cannot be doubted. Accordingly, credit is eligible. 10. With regard to the imposition of penalty, the issue being interpretative in nature, penalty is not warranted and the same is accordingly set aside. 11. In view of foregoing discussions, the credit is eligible on the management, maintenance and repair service of helicopter. With ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
