TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taken together for disposal. With the consent of both sides, the appeals itself are taken up for disposal after dispensing with requirement of pre-deposit for both the appeals. Appeal No.ST/304/2011 2. This appeal is filed by Aircel Cellular Ltd. operating in Chennai. After hearing both sides in the matter, we find that there are four issues involved in this appeal which are briefly indicated in the following table:- S.No. Issue Amount Demanded Period (1) Denial of Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid to BSNL under Access Deficit Charges (ADC) 33,78,443/- June'07 to March'08 (2) Demand of Service Tax on account of common recharge facility with M/s.Aircel Ltd., Coimbat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y provided by BSNL. 3. The counsel submits that without the services of BSNL, they cannot connect their customers to persons who are accessible only through the lines of BSNL and thus in this situation, BSNL was providing services to the appellant and the government has been collecting service tax on the charges collected by BSNL to appellant by classifying the services under the category of Telecommunication Services and therefore the argument that it is only a facility is not maintainable. 4. In respect of the second issue, the counsel for appellant explains that in Tamil Nadu, Chennai is one Telecom Circle and the rest of Chennai is another Telecom Circle as far as the mobile services are concerned. There have been occasions, when the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. 30.11.2011. This order is accepted by Revenue and no appeal is filed against dropping of demand. 6. In respect of the fourth issue, the counsel admitted the demand and he has submitted that the amount has been paid and appropriated in the impugned order itself. 7. Further, the counsel submits that in the case of 2nd& 3rd issue, the matter has been adjudicated by Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai by Order-in-Original No.68/2011 dt. 30.11.2011 for the subsequent period and demands in respect of these two issues have been dropped by the Commissioner. He submits that this order has been approved by the reviewing authority which decision has been confirmed by the Ld. AR for Revenue also. Therefore, the counsel for appellant relies on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion at Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit on such services. Therefore, we allow this appeal of the appellant in respect of the first issue. 10. In respect of the 2nd and 3rd issues, we remand the matter to the respondent-Commissioner i.e. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai who has already examined similar matter to give a detailed finding whether the issue involved in this appeal is in any way different from the one already adjudicated by Order-in-Original No.68/2011 dt. 30.11.2011 and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the Apex Court's decision in the case of Jayaswals Neco Ltd. (supra). 11. As regards the 4th issue, the appellant has not contested the issue and we u....