2009 (7) TMI 259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 40,592/- a sum of Rs. 33,119/- is covered by one show-cause notice and the balance amount of Rs. 7,473/- by another show-cause notice. The first show-cause notice proposed to deny CENVAT credit on the ground of limitation in respect of the taxable services in question. In respect of telephone service, this show-cause notice denied CENVAT credit to the assessee on the further ground that the telephone bills were not in the name of the assessee. In respect of certain other taxable services, this show-cause notice alleged that CENVAT credit was not admissible to the assessee inasmuch as, at the time of availment of such credit, these services were not C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessee had failed to establish that the services in question were used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. As regards mobile phone services, the appellate authority relied on CBEC Circular No. 97/8/2007-S.T., dated 23-8-2007 and denied CENVAT credit to the assessee for want of evidence. 2. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, I find that, in so far as telephone service is concerned, there is no dispute inasmuch as the telephone bills were not in the name of the assessee and the amount of CENVAT credit was undertaken to be paid. As regards mobile phone service, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Commissioner of Central Excise(LTU), Chennai v. Brakes India Ltd. - 2009 (13) S.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he manufacture and/or clearance of the final products, but the assessee has failed to establish that the mobile phones in question were dedicated to this purpose." 3. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the mobile phones were procured by the company and supplied to some of their functionaries/employees and that mobile phone bills were paid by the company. In this circumstance, there is a presumption that the mobile phones were meant to be used in connection with the business of the company. This presumption, of course, is rebuttable. As this presumption is in favour of the assessee, the rebuttal has to come from the Revenue. In this case, there is nothing in the impugned order to show that this presumption was successfully reb....