9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue; Shri Sanjay Grover, Advocate for the respondent [Order per : P.K. Das, Member (Judicial)] - Revenue filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.11-ST/RPR-II/2008 dated 9.4.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Raipur. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in providing taxable service of Industrial Construction. It has been alleged that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the business activities. He submits that in the present case the employees of the respondent company used the mobile phone for individual purposes and, therefore, the respondent company is not eligible for credit. He further submits that mere payment of bills by the respondent company does not imply that the services have been utilized by the respondent company. He also submits that the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008 (12) STR 716 (Tri.-Ahmd.). He also submits that the demand of tax is clearly barred by limitation. 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen from the impugned order that mobile phones were used by the full time directors of the respondent company. It is also seen that the respondents produced the bank statement showing payment of the bills of the respondent compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainable. 6. I agree with the submission of the learned D.R. that mere payment of bills by the respondents does not imply that the services have been utilized by the respondent company for business activities. But in the present case it is seen that the mobile phones were utilized by the full time directors of the respondent company for business purposes which were not negated by the Revenue. In v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
