2013 (7) TMI 794

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1 The appellant are provider of Telecommunication Service in the state of Rajasthan. Their Head Office is located in Delhi where they have been taken service tax registration. The period of dispute is from Nov.'05 to June'06. During the period of dispute they availed Cenvat Credit of Rs. 5,52,226/- in respect of input services on the basis of invoices which were in the name of the Head Office. Dur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....td. 01.11.2010 against which this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Sh. Rajat Bose, ld. counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the appellant in pursuance of the direction of the Bench have given an affidavit affirming that during the period of dispute, while the appellants Head Office was in Delhi, they were providing telecommunication service in the state of Rajasthan whe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gned order upholding the denial of Cenvat Credit and imposition of penalty is not sustainable. 4. Sh. R.K. Mathur, ld. departmental representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pointed out to Additional Commissioner's findings in para 5.5 of the order where in it has been mentioned that the debit advice dtd. 18.04.2001 issued by ICICI....