TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Telecom provider wins $87.40 crore Service Tax dispute due to Rule 10 application.</h1> <h3>M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi</h3> M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi - TMI Issues:Demand of Service Tax denial based on Cenvat Credit availed on inputs and capital goods for setting up towers and buildings. Interpretation of Rule 3(5) and Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Applicability of Rule 10 in the case of transfer of infrastructure. Imposition of penalty and limitation period for the demand.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in telecommunication services, faced a demand of around Rs. 87.40 crores for Service Tax due to denial of Cenvat Credit on inputs and capital goods used for towers and buildings. The dispute arose after a demerger where assets were transferred to another entity but continued to be used by the appellant. The Commissioner rejected Rule 3(5) application but invoked Rule 10, stating unutilized credit lapsed due to non-transfer. However, no penalty was imposed due to departmental confusion.The Tribunal noted that Rule 10 allows transfer of unutilized Cenvat credit in cases of business transfer, which applied to the appellant's situation. The rule does not mandate transfer if the credit remains with the original owner. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal agreed that denial of credit was unjustified as the appellant retained control and used the infrastructure. The Tribunal clarified that the dispute concerned Rule 10's application to existing credit, separate from initial credit availing proceedings.Regarding penalty and limitation, the Tribunal found no malafide intent to evade tax, supporting the appellant's argument against penalty and time-bar. The Tribunal viewed the circumstances for penalty and extended limitation period as similar, ruling in favor of the appellant's prima facie case. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit condition and granted an unconditional stay, allowing both parties to seek an early hearing due to the significant revenue involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
