https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757995 CESTAT Mumbai held that telecommunication services provided by appellants through master distributor to subscribers were not exempted services under Explanation 3 to Rule 6(1) of CCR. The tribunal found consideration was always present in service provision during disputed period 05.09.2016 to 31.03.2017, as subscribers were contractually obliged to pay charges. Commissioner's disallowance of entire CENVAT credit on capital goods was deemed perverse without statutory basis. Extended limitation period under Section 73 was not justified as no suppression of facts existed. Service tax demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable. Impugned order dated 10.12.2022 was set aside and appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 27 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757995 CESTAT Mumbai held that telecommunication services provided by appellants through master distributor to subscribers were not exempted services under Explanation 3 to Rule 6(1) of CCR. The tribunal found consideration was always present in service provision during disputed period 05.09.2016 to 31.03.2017, as subscribers were contractually obliged to pay charges. Commissioner's disallowance of entire CENVAT credit on capital goods was deemed perverse without statutory basis. Extended limitation period under Section 73 was not justified as no suppression of facts existed. Service tax demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable. Impugned order dated 10.12.2022 was set aside and appeal allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 27 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757995