2011 (6) TMI 389

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t by the adjudicating authority. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Rotary leaf filter and its spares falling under chapter sub-heading 84.22, 84.74 and 84.79 of CETA, 1985, the appellant also availed CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 on input services received by them and utilized the same for payment of Central Excise duty on the goods and cleared on payment of duty. They availed CENVAT credit of Service Tax paid on telephone installed at the residence of one of the partners amounted to Rs.4,785/-. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the ground that the CENVAT credit is not available on such service and accordingly duty was demanded along with interest and equivalent amount of penalt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to establish that they had declared the said premises as their office to the Department and to show that the payments of the bills in question were made by them, which in turn would have proved the use of the telephone service in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods." Ld. SDR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Napur vs. Manikgarh Cement reported in. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. The contention of the appellant throughout has been that the telephone installed at the residence of one of the partners is for business purpose and the bills are paid by the company. The Bangalore bench of the Tribunal in the ....