2010 (8) TMI 268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e tax paid on such services. On the ground on which the disallowance has been made by the ld. Appellate Authority is that the input service was neither used for providing an output service nor used directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture of the final product. Except this ground, there is no evidence coming forward from the order of the authority below demonstrating their application of mind to examine relevant evidence, if any. 2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that not only cenvat credit was disallowed but also penalty was also imposed, reducing the sum of Rs. 1,000/- for which the appellant has been aggrieved. Shri Narasimhan, ld. Counsel argues that when the broad definition of input serv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Certainly the amount disallowed is only Rs. 15,328/-. The amount is immaterial but the cause of disallowance is material. When such an aspect could be appreciated the allegation in show cause notice was enquired. The show cause notice says that scrutiny of details of service tax credit on telephone and mobile phone services related to the period January 2006 to September 2006, Cenvat credit was taken wrongly on telephone services (Mobile phone and telephone not installed in the factory premises of the noticee) as input services as per details given in Annexure - "A" to the show cause notice. The show cause notice further exhibits that it was apparent to the authority that the cenvat credit was wrongly availed in regard to the service not us....