9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BSNL, SALEM VERSUS CCE, SALEM [ 2013 (1) TMI 142 - CESTAT CHENNAI ] in which the issue was decided in favour of the appellants where it was held that ' The argument of the appellants that the premises where the equipment are used belong to BSNL and not to any other party and it is also used for completion of services originating from Salem also are strong arguments in favour of the appellants. Since Modvat credit is a substantial benefit, we are of the view that the impugned credit should not be denied on account of procedural defects of minor nature as pointed out by the Revenue.' The above decision has been accepted by the Revenue. It can be seen that various Benches of the Tribunal i.e Chandigarh, Allahabad and Chennai were unani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the telecom operators; the Show Cause Notice dated 31.03.2014 was issued to the appellants and the proposals of the same were confirmed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Panchkula vide impugned order dated 12.09.2014. Learned Commissioner disallowed CENVAT credit of Rs.3,03,33,207/- along with applicable interest; imposed a penalty of Rs.30,00,000/- under Rule 15(1) of CCR, 2004 and penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994. Hence, this appeal. 2. Ms. Krati Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the issue is no longer res integra; the issue has been decided in their favour for the period 2007 to 2012 and CESTAT vide Final Order No.60936/2016 dated 12.07.2016; CESTAT s order has been accepted by the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocation was taken in one office making it easy for Revenue to conduct verification as may be necessary. The argument of the appellants that the premises where the equipment are used belong to BSNL and not to any other party and it is also used for completion of services originating from Salem also are strong arguments in favour of the appellants. Since Modvat credit is a substantial benefit, we are of the view that the impugned credit should not be denied on account of procedural defects of minor nature as pointed out by the Revenue. Therefore, we hold that the impugned order is not maintainable. So, we set aside the order and allow the appeal. 5. We find that the above decision has been accepted by the Revenue. It can be seen that various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
