9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed vide order in-appeal – held that - The adjudicating authority did not give any finding that the said ser vices availed by the appellants are not used for providing output service or used in or in relation to manufacture of finished goods. Otherwise he hold that the appellant failed to establish that the said services have been fully used for the purpose of business. - the mobile phones are all standing in the name of the company and used by the employees in relation to the work only and incidentally can be used for personal work but that by itself is no ground to deny the credit - E/1325/2007 and E/153 & 554/2008-Mum - A/329-331/2009-WZB/C -IV/SMB - Dated:- 30-6-2009 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) Shri S.A. Gundecha, Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Mobile Phones and Motor Vehicles is restricted to only for of purpose and not for any personal work? Ans: There are no checks. But as per the management instructions, they are to be used for official purpose only. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied on the following judgments:- (a) CCE, Mumbai-IV v. CKP Mandal - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 449 (Tri.-Mum) = 2005 (180) E.L.I. 471 (Tribunal) wherein it was held "Expression 'in relation' in Section 65(105)(m) of Finance Act, 1994 is equivalent to 'concerning with' or 'pertaining to' and is expression of comprehensiveness". (b) Indian Rayon Industries Ltd. V. CCE, Bhavnagar - 2006 (4) S.T.R. 79 (Tri-Mum) wherein it was held that Service tax paid on mobile phone is available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit is admissible. 6. Learned SDR relied on the C.B.E C. Circular No. 97/8/2007-S.T., dated 23-8-2007 which is very specific about the admissibility of Cenvat credit on mobile charges. In that circular it was made clear in respect of mobile telephone service is admissible, provided the mobile phone is used for providing output service or used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods. He further submitted that the documents produced before the Asst. Commissioner could not verify the amount of services used by the employees for their personal purposes. So the appellants have failed to establish that the service have been fully used for the purpose of business and do not qualify to be input services under the definition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng adjudication the Asst. Commissioner found that the appellants have submitted some sample copies of vehicle duty slip details, monthly debit of mobile charges to officer's personal account. In the case of vehicles duty slip it was observed that certain details like requisition from whom and date, name of the department etc. were kept blank. Therefore it cannot be verified that the vehicles were used exclusively for business purpose only. Regarding the mo bile phones it was clarified that the companies debit the employee account on monthly basis whenever the bills exceed the limit of the mobile bill allotted to them. Therefore it could not be verified that the call made within the permissible limits were for official purposes only. 8. Af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
