2010 (8) TMI 268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... und on which the disallowance has been made by the ld. Appellate Authority is that the input service was neither used for providing an output service nor used directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture of the final product. Except this ground, there is no evidence coming forward from the order of the authority below demonstrating their application of mind to examine relevant evidence, if any. 2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that not only cenvat credit was disallowed but also penalty was also imposed, reducing the sum of Rs. 1,000/- for which the appellant has been aggrieved. Shri Narasimhan, ld. Counsel argues that when the broad definition of input services has been given by law and the landli .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 328/-. The amount is immaterial but the cause of disallowance is material. When such an aspect could be appreciated the allegation in show cause notice was enquired. The show cause notice says that scrutiny of details of service tax credit on telephone and mobile phone services related to the period January 2006 to September 2006, Cenvat credit was taken wrongly on telephone services (Mobile phone and telephone not installed in the factory premises of the noticee) as input services as per details given in Annexure - "A" to the show cause notice. The show cause notice further exhibits that it was apparent to the authority that the cenvat credit was wrongly availed in regard to the service not used in or in relation to the final products. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t what that may be apparent may not be real. Also it may be stated that suspicion shall not be substitute of evidence. When there is a total laxity in the examination, contention of the ld. DR today although being Revenue conscious submission does not permit to sustain the orders of the authority below. No one can be dealt behind back, being the elementary principle of justice, this appellant appears to have been dealt in a negligible manner.Ld. DRsubmits that this decision may have a serious infact through out the country. Such a proposition cannot be accepted since decision in each case is on the facts and circumstances of each case and on the basis of the evidence on record. It is made clear that this order having been passed in peculiar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X