9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 ST/28521/2013 April 2006 to September 2006 Interest for the period April 2006 to September 2006 27,04,821/- 2 ST/28522/2013 October 2006 to September 2007 Interest for the period October 2006 to September 2007 2,23,646/- 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing Telecommunication Services and other related services in various States. In Appeal No. ST/28521/2013, a show-cause notice dated 15.10.2007 was issued which inter alia required the appellant to show-cause as to why interest and penalty should not be demanded under the following: (a) An amount of Rs. 27,04,821/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty One only) being interest on inadmissible cenvat credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,23,646/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Six only) and penalty should not be demanded due to the availment of inadmissible cenvat credit taken and utilized on the SIM Cards. Appellant filed the reply to the show-cause notice contending that the SIM Cards are used for providing Telecommunication Services and hence it is inputs and not capital goods. However, adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 19.11.2008 confirmed the demand of interest of Rs. 2,23,646/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Six only) along with imposition of penalty of Rs. 27,83,545/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Five only) under Rule 15. Aggrieved by the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Union Carbide India Ltd. Vs. CCEX., Calcutta-I 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (L.B.) and CCE & Cus. Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd. 2000 (119) E.L.T. 197 (Tri.-LB) wherein it has been held that the definition of input is very wide and covers all goods (with few exceptions) used for providing output service. He further submitted that SIM card would certainly qualify as input for the purpose of providing taxable service of mobile Telecommunication Services. Therefore, following the ratio of the above decisions, I hold that SIM card is an input and not capital goods. Further with regard to the excess credit availed on capital goods, he submitted that no interest can be demanded as the appellant is eligible to avail the excess credit w.e.f. 01.04.2007 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mysore 2016-TIOL-2020-CESTAT-BANG. It is pertinent to mention that the said view has already been followed even by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE Vs. Strategic Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-466-HC-MAD-CX inter alia holding that mere taking of credit which has been reversed without utilization, no liability for payment of interest or penalty would arise thereof. The similar principle has already been followed by CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE 2016 (332) E.L.T. 865. 5. On the other hand the learned AR submitted that the appellant has irregularly taken credit and therefore he is liable to pay interest on the excess credit availed. 6. After considering the submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
