TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d such expenditure as business expenditure. As in KELTECH ENERGIES LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MANGALORE [2008 (1) TMI 96 - CESTAT BANGALORE] the CENVAT credit in case of telephone installed at the residences of the director and officials of the assessee was allowed - in favour of assessee. - E/360/2009-Mum - A/178/11/SMB/C-IV - Dated:- 7-6-2011 - S K Gaule, J. For Appellant : Ms Lalita S Phadke, Adv. For Respondent : Shri Manish Mohan, SDR Per: S K Gaule: Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal no. AH/54/M-III/2008 dated 31.12.2008 whereby the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of CENVAT credit on the service tax of Rs.4,785/- on the telephone installed at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y have rightly availed the same. In support of their contention, they have cited the Tribunal's decision in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II reported in 2011(21)STR 56(Tri-Del), Commissioner of Central Excise, Vishakhapatnam vs. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. reported in 2010(254)ELT 354(Tri-Bang), Keltech Energies Ltd. vs. Commissioner of reported in 2009(14)STR 316(Tribunal). 5. The ld. SDR has heavily relied on the order learned Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it has been held that Except for their contention in the appeal that the telephones installed at the office located at the residence of the partner are being used for sales relating activities with the overseas clients and suppliers a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010(260)ELT 369(Bom.) held that where the input service used is integrally connected with the business of manufacturing the final product and the cost of that input service forms part of the cost of the final product, then credit of service tax paid on such input services would be allowable. The department could not produce any evidence, contrary to the fact that the telephones were not used for the business purpose and that the expenditure was borne by the appellant company and cost of input service, the department also could not produce any evidence that they have undertaken any investigation to find out that the telephone service was us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
