TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat credit - utilisation of excess of 20% of input tax - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res integra and the same is covered in favour of the appellant - assessee by precedent ruling of this Tribunal in IDEA CELLULAR LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ROHTAK [ 2009 (2) TMI 91 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein the issue was whether the common input services used for providing taxable and exempted output services to be restricted to 20% of exempted services. It was further held that the restriction under Rule 6(3)(c) is not applicable to capital goods credit - also as per CBEC Circular dated 1st October, 2007 the only restriction with respect to Cenvat credit on capital goods was that if the capital goods used exclusively for manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties on the issue. 4. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant, by the precedent order of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs CCE 2014 (34) S.T.R. 378 (Tri.-Chennai) and the same have been followed by the Tribunal reported at 2009 (14) S.T.R. 699 (Tribunal). 5. The second issue is regarding the utilization of Cenvat credit used in excess of 20% of input tax wherein the amount involved is ₹ 47,38,186/-. 6. The case of Revenue is that the appellant was providing both exempted services and taxable services and since they did not maintain separate account in respect of credit attributable to input and input services used in providing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the verification accordingly, it was held that 20% of credit is applicable in the input/ capital goods and input services which are used for providing both dutiable and exempted services. 9. Having considered the rival contentions on this issue we find that the issue is no more res integra and the same is covered in favour of the appellant - assessee by precedent ruling of this Tribunal M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs CCE (Supra) wherein the issue was whether the common input services used for providing taxable and exempted output services to be restricted to 20% of exempted services. It was further held that the restriction under Rule 6(3)(c) is not applicable to capital goods credit. Further reference was made to CBEC Circular d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /BSNL -UPE/Taxation/RAC-Service Tax/03 dated 11th January, 2011 wherein it has been mentioned that the verification of document was ordered by the Adjudicating Authority and audit team headed by Mr. Illiyas Husain (Superintendent) under the direction of Assistant Commissioner were carrying on verification and such verifications were carried on 27th October, 2010 to 29th October, 2010, wherein one phase for amount up to ₹ 5,59,82,756/- was verified and accepted. The next phase was carried in Lucknow Telecom District Office located at P.K. Bhawan on dated 11th November, 2010, 12th November, 2010, 30th November, 2010, 3rd December, 2010, 22nd December, 2010, 24th December, 2010. It was further mentioned that in the mean time the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
