2013 (8) TMI 564

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... service". It has been alleged that the applicants availed irregular CENVAT credit on towers & shelters, erection and installation pertaining to towers and shelters and other equipments/cell sites, other input services like insurance and security for unregistered premises, banking, cab, catering etc. and on invalid documents. Hence, there was denial of CENVAT Credit and imposition of penalty along with interest. The main issue involved in this case is whether the tower on which the antenna is mounted by the applicants would constitute capital goods for the purpose of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The ld. Advocate on behalf of the applicants placed a chart showing the demand of tax in respect of each applicant is given below....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....redit availed twice Sep'04-Mar'09 Sep'04-Mar'08 Sep'04-Mar'09 Sept'04-ar'08 April'06-ar'07 Apr'06-Mar'07 Apr'06-Mar'07 9,63,87,772 1,06,28,327 2,02,43,877 2,39,86,685 1,08,91,651 12,26,211 6,21,398     TOTAL 16,39,85,921   3. The learned advocate submits that they have already reversed the credit availed by twice. He further submits that on the identical issues, this Tribunal granted unconditional stay in series of cases and some of them are as under:    (a) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. CCE Chandigarh - Stay Order No.ST/S/803/12 dt.27.6.12    (b) Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. CST New Delhi - Stay Order No.ST/S/719-720/12 dt.18.6.2012  &nbs....