9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, 2004. The dispute in the present case related to the Service Tax paid on input service of "Interconnectivity Usages Services" provided by other telecom operators. The appellant discharged Service Tax to the other telecom operators and availed credit. The Revenue objected to the said credit on the ground that the appellant is providing interconnectivity service to other telecom operators which is his output service for which the interconnectivity services received has no connection as input service. The impugned order further held that BSNL is providing telephone services to the subscribers and for providing such telephone services inter-connectivity with other telecom operators is a requirement. However, BSNL is separately registered a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax registrations are taken for administrative reasons. Even otherwise the DGM (Maintenance), the present appellant is entrusted with the work of arranging the inter-connectivity, inward as well as outward for provision of telephone services to the subscribers. The inter-connectivity is necessary for telecommunication service is not in dispute. It cannot be stated that the inward inter-connectivity service should be directly linked to the outward inter-connectivity service. Both inward as well as outward inter-connectivity services are over all required for providing telephone service to the ultimate consumer. In such context there is no legal justification in denying the credit to the appellant. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 60936/2016 dated 12/07/2016 relying on earlier decisions held that the Cenvat credit being a substantial benefit cannot be denied on account of procedural defects of minor nature and accordingly allowed the credit. The dispute in the said case was with reference to the crdit availed by General Manager office of BSNL in respect of taxable output service provided by other several units of BSNL. The revenue denied the credit in the said case on the ground that the input service received by the General Manger office has no connection with the services provided by the other units of BSNL. 7. In view of the above discussion and analysis we find denial of credit in the present case is not justified. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
