2017 (8) TMI 110

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arasimhan, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ashok Jindal The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is providing Tele-Communication services. As they are providing taxable as well as exempted services and not maintaining account in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, therefore, in terms of Rule 6(3....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication of the said facts drop the show cause notice against the respondent. Aggrieved from the said order, Revenue is before us. 3. The Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that as the adjudicating authority did not get the verified record from the range jurisdictional authorities, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and without any verification. Although, the Chartered Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd after duly verification, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority dropped the proceedings and nothing contrary to that has been brought on record by the Revenue. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 6. We find that in the impugned order, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has decided the legal issue first and thereafter he had verified the records. We have gone through the show cause notice....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ity has verified the fact that on capital goods that the respondent is entitled to avail the Cenvat Credit in full. Further in case of the services mentioned in Rules, 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the respondent is entitled to avail the Cenvat Credit in full and for the remaining services, he has extracted the chart and allowed 20% of the Cenvat Credit availed on those services after ver....