9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oviding Telecommunication Services and were availing Cenvat Credit of duties and taxes paid on inputs, capital goods and input services. Provision of said Telecommunication Services involved carrying out an activity of interconnection between Telegraph Authorities i.e., interconnecting subscribers of other telecom companies with its own subscribers. Circular No.91/2/2007-ST dated 12.03.2007 issued by CBEC clarified that said interconnect usage charges were not taxable under any of duty in existing taxable services and was covered by amended definition of Telecommunication Services introduced in Finance Bill, 2007 and shall come into effect after the enactment of Finance Bill, 2007. In view of Rule 2(e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal Authority has directed the appellant to pay interest on reversed amount of Rs. 5,91,66,347/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 7,83,92,438/- under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that during the period from April, 2007 to September, 2007 service tax of Rs. 5,71,895/- was already paid by the appellant and the same was entered in different heads of Service Tax and Education Cess due to bona fide error of computation and that upon discovery the same was rectified and there was no mala fide intention of non-payment and the error was only accounting error and, therefore, it is not a cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was beyond the period of limitation and there were no ingredients for invocation of extend period of limitation and, therefore, the demand was barred by limitation. He has further argued that since the demand was barred by limitation the impugned order is not sustainable. 4. Heard the learned AR Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Superintendent on behalf of the Revenue who has supported the impugned order. 5. Having considered the submissions from both the sides and on perusal of record we find that the demand confirmed is in respect of recovery of Cenvat Credit which is used for discharge of Service Tax in excess of 20% of the service tax payable through Cenvat Credit in view of provision of Rule 6(3)(c) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice tax had exceeded the limit of 20% of the service tax payable. (b) The dispute in this case is linked with the question as to whether or not the 'interconnect usage charges' being charged by one telephone service provider from another for network access attract service tax and the Board vide letter No.199/2/2004-CX-4 dated 15.06.2004 intimated BSNL that Interconnect usage charges would not attract service tax. In view of this background, it would be totally unfair for the Department to claim that it was not aware that the Appellant were providing non-taxable service like inter-connectivity, roaming service etc. 5.1 Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CCE vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) and Pushpa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
