2015 (7) TMI 966

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 03. Thereafter, the appellant neither filed returns nor paid any tax. Thereafter in December 2005, appellants filed ST-3 returns for the period subsequent to September 2003 up to October 2005 and in the order-in-original No. 75/2006 dated 1.4.2006, the show cause notice issued to the appellant on 26.08.2005 was adjudicated resulting in imposition of penalty under Section 77 of the Act for not filing their returns. Apparently from the facts narrated above what emerges is the fact that department took up the issue of non-filing of returns and thereafter the appellant filed the returns in December 2005 and for delayed filing of returns penalty was imposed. Any layman would conclude that the proceedings ended at this stage. However that is not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant under the category of rent on equipment. At least from this, it can be inferred that appellants when they filed ST-3 returns apparently never made a claim that what they had received was installation and commissioning service. Their claim is that they had paid service tax charged by the service provider and the equipment was being used by them for providing Broadcasting service and therefore credit is admissible. However, there is a bald observation in the order-in-original that "equipment rental charges are not an input service for the purpose of availment of credit" and that if the credit is relating to commissioning and installation service, there cannot be commissioning and installation service every month. Similar observations .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... correctness of the tax paid and it is not proper to deny the assessee CENVAT credit of service tax paid by agencies engaged by them. In the case of Treads direct Ltd., Vs CCE Calicut [2012 (286) ELT 583 (Tri Bang)], it was held that the question as to whether input is dutiable cannot be agitated at the end of manufacturer of final product. 5. In view of the above decision and also in view of the discussion about the facts of the case, I find that there is absolutely no case for the Revenue to deny the CENVAT credit and accordingly the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any to the appellant. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, O .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X