2017 (6) TMI 375

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2. The Appellant is engaged in providing Telephone Services and availing Cenvat Credit on Service Tax paid on input services, Central Excise duty paid on inputs and Capital Goods. Such Cenvat Credit was utilised to pay the service tax liability arising on output service. For providing output service, the appellant is required to install wide range of electronic and electric equipments and various kind of towers and shelters. Without such towers and shelters, it is practically impossible to provide the output service by appellant. 3. Two Show Cause Notices dated 21.04.2006 and 18.10.2006 for the period from April, 2004 to March, 2005 and April 2005 to September, 2005 respectively were issued to deny CENVAT credit of excise duty paid on ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant was asked by the department vide letter dated 18.03.2008 to reverse the credit on above said items. 9. Three further Show Cause Notices were issued to the Appellant- Show Cause Notice Dated Period Demand of CENVAT Credit 21.04.2008 Oct. 2006 to March, 2007 Rs.2,14,01,956/- 04.06.2008 Oct. 2005 to Sep. 2006 Rs.3,42,83,366/- 17.10.2008 April 2007 to March 2008 Rs.4,16,56,545/- 10. The Ld. Commissioner passed the Order-in-Original No.01-03/Comm/Meerut-I/2009 dated 30.01.2009 confirming the demand proposed in the above three show cause notices. The Appellant challenged the same before this Court. 11. Appeal of the Appellant along with other appeals involving same issue was heard by this Court o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is not available even in those cases where such credit is allowed by my ld. Brother vide para 12(b) and (c) of his judgment. Consequently, I express my respectful disagreement with the order of my Ld. Brother as contained in para 12(b) and 12(c) of his judgment and pass the following order in total agreement with rest of his order. (a) On merits, the appellants have no case in the light of the decision of Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Supra) of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. (b) The extended period of limitation is not invokable. Therefore, the demands beyond the normal period off limitation are set aside. (c) Penalties imposed on the appellants are set aside." 13. As there was difference of opinion between the two Membe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Credit to the tune of Rs. 2,59,95,327/- on shelters/parts as Capital goods wherein the supplier has paid Excise Duty on these items by classifying under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985." 14. After that another division bench heard a bunch of 8 appeals Appeal Nos.ST/55227/2013, 51115, 51211, 51721, 51729, 52377, 52378, 52382/2015 and the above referred Interim Order in which difference of opinion occurred was also placed before that division bench. The Bench after hearing directed that the appeals in which the difference of opinion was recorded vide order dated 28.07.2015 (the above said Interim Order), be heard by a Larger Bench of three Members and that Appeal Nos.ST/55227/2013, 51115, 51211, 51721, 51729, 52377, 5237....