2017 (11) TMI 536

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : V. Padmanabhan, Member (T)]. - The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 132/2011, dated 5-4-2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur. 2. The appellant provided telephone service taxable under Section 65(105)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. They were hav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant and Shri Ranjan Khanna, ld. DR for the Revenue. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount retained by them was towards capital expenditure that was to be incurred for providing the service and it was not towards consideration for providing telephone service because the charges to customers under Tatkal Scheme were at par with charges for service for similar servic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e subscribers under Tatkal Scheme which has been retained by the appellant after the connection is disconnected prematurely. The Revenue is of the view that, that portion of the deposit retained has to be considered towards consideration for provision of service. In support, Revenue has also cited explanation under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 wherein it has been provided that adjustments m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the charges to customer under Tatkal Scheme were at par with charges of service to the customers under similar schemes. We find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the appellant. There is nothing on record to suggest that the portion of the deposit retained by was towards provision of telephone service. The expenditure under Section 67 providing for adjustments made form any depos....