TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the output services- credit in respect of capital goods if they have not exceeded the ceiling of 20% of credit taken on inputs and input services and therefore the demand is not maintainable. Service tax on Leased Circuit Services – Demand is not maintainable as per sec 65(l09a) service has to be chargeable at the time when the service was provided - Demand for Pre-deposit waived in favour of assessee. - ST/410/2011 - ST/S/531/2012-CUS. - Dated:- 15-5-2012 - MS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MATHEW JOHN, JJ. Vineet Kumar Singh for the Appellant. K.P. Singh for the Respondent. ORDER Mathew John, Technical Member In this case, demand raised by denying Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,58,95,919/- for the period April 2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellants were providing both exempted service and taxable service and since they did not maintain separate accounts in respect of credit attributable to input and input services used in providing such taxable and exempted output services, they should have utilised credit only to the extent of 20% of the taxable service each time while paying service tax as per the provisions of Rule 6(3)(c) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The Counsel for appellants submits that most of the credit taken by them was on account of capital goods. He points out in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. v. CCE [2009] 19 STT 423 (New Delhi - CESTAT), the Tribunal has held that such restriction will apply only in cases where credit is taken on input and input services use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as an input service distributor, the credit cannot be extended to them. He also points out that credit taken is not only for equipments but also for input services. 3.2 In the matter of usage of Cenvat credit in excess of 20%, ceiling as prescribed under Rule 6(3)(c) of Cenvat Credit Rules ld. A.R. submits that the Appellants have not submitted clear statement how much credit was on account of capital goods and how much on account of input and input services and therefore their plea cannot be accepted. 3.3 In the case of leased circuit services also, the contention of the A.R. is that the definition of telecommunication service as it was existing prior to 1.6.2007 was broad enough to cover the leased circuit services and there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the definition existing before 1.6.2007 could not have covered the said service and that was the reason for amending the entry. So prima facie , we are of the view that the demand on this matter also is not maintainable. In the dispute regarding interest payable there is a need to look into the detailed accounts of the Appellants. The adjudicating authority's contention that the Appellants should have produced all the records before him does not appear to be workable solution. The adjudicating authority should have arrived at the conclusion only after scrutiny of the records of the Appellants with help of person having adequate experience of accounting. 5. Thus prima facie there is no reason to call for any pre-deposit in this appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
