Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (4) TMI 253

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the assessee in this case is the user of the service provided by BSNL and that service is used for providing output service to the customers of the assessee. Therefore, the definition squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Since the assessee has satisfied the requirement of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Department was not justified in taking a different view contrary to the said provision. - no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal - Decided against Revenue. - C.M.A. No.545 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 26-3-2015 - R.sudhakar And T.Raja JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.V.Sundareswaran For the Respondent : Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran Judgment (DELIVERED BY R.SUDHAKAR, J.) This Civil Misc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s Deficit Charges. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the respondent. The Adjudicating Authority took the view that it was only a facility extended to connect the end user by BSNL where the networking facility was not feasible for the respondent. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority denied the service tax credit on the payment towards ADC holding as follows: From the foregoing, it would emerge that ADC charges are levied by BSNL to access mostly on rural/remote areas where there is no connectivity by the service provider. Hence it can be inferred that it is only a FACILITY extended, facilitating the service provider to connect the end user by the BSNL where the networking facility is not feasible by the assessee in ques .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is appeal of the appellant in respect of the first issue. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the present appeal before this Court. 6. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and the learned counsel appearing for the assessee and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7. The interpretation in this case revolves around Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which reads as follows: RULE 2. Definitions - In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires - (a)....... ........ (l) input service means any service, - (i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service, or (ii) used by the manufacturer, whether directly or ind .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates