2011 (6) TMI 586

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o suppression? 2. Learned Counsel is very fair to submit that the issue of taxability in the case of visiting network service provider has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. v. C.C.E., Rohtak - 2009 (16) S.T.R. 712 (Tri. - Del.). But his further submission is that Cenvat credit admissible whether shall be worked out in respect of each return period or shall be worked out for whole year tax liability is to be decided. He also submit that period under taxation was May, 2003 to August, 2004 and show cause notice was issued on 21-8-2006. When the appellant filed respective returns disclosing about the method of working of the appellant to the department the proceeding was time barred. He also argued that since ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad entire fact been disclosed, bona fide would have come up for consideration. Section 73(1) specifically covers the circumstances which states that when contravention of law was made by contravener for unjust enrichment, such act amounts to suppression. Therefore, while granting Cenvat credit to the extent permissible in respect of each return period, Revenue is entitled to levy penalty for the loss it has suffered. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. 5. So far as restriction of Cenvat credit to the extent of 35% is concerned that no more is in dispute by virtue of decision of the Tribunal in Idea Cellular Ltd. case 2009 (16) S.T.R. 712 (Tri. - Del.). Visiting network service is exempted service for which admissibility ....