TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 708
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... together and are disposed by this common order. 2. The appellants are engaged in providing mobile phone services and are registered with the Service Tax Department under Telecommunication Services. During the course of audit, it was noticed that they availed credit on inputs and capital goods as well as duty paid on towers and shelters and credit availed on various input services. It was also noticed that they had wrongly availed exemption under Notification No. 4/2004-ST dated 31.3.2004 on Telecom Services provided to SEZ units. Show cause notices were issued proposing to recover wrongly availed credit along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ligible for credit on inputs and capital goods has been decided against the appellants by the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Airtel Vs. CCE 2012 (4) TMI 362 CESTAT Mumbai. He submitted that, however, part of the demand would fall within the extended period of limitation. The issue whether credit is admissible on duty paid on inputs and capital goods for erection of mobile towers was contentious during the relevant period. The appellant had availed credit on the bonafide belief that credit is admissible on the angles, channels etc. used for erecting structures/towers. The Tribunal in the appellant s own case for earlier period had set aside the demand on the ground of limitation as well as the penalties for the normal period. He prayed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of exemption under Notification No.4/2004, the ld. Counsel submitted that the department has sought to deny the exemption alleging that service had not been consumed within the SEZ. He argued that the mobile subscriptions have been availed within SEZ unit itself. Though the facility of such mobile phones may be used outside the SEZ, the same cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of exemption as per the notification. He adverted to the notification, and submitted that the said notification exempts service tax payable on services provided to SEZ units and therefore the demand raised on this count cannot sustain. 4. The ld. Commissioner (AR) Ms. Hemavathi reiterated the findings in the impugned order. She argued that the appellants have wron....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was contentious for a long time and had travelled upto the Larger Bench of the Tribunal and thereafter to higher fora. Taking note of these facts, we find invocation of extended period is without grounds. There is nothing to establish that appellant had availed credit suppressing facts with intent to evade duty. All along the issue was being litigated before various authorities. The Tribunal in the Final Order dated 22.1.2018 cited supra, has set aside the demand for the extended period as well as the penalties for the normal period. Following the same, we are of the considered opinion that the demand on this count for the extended period requires to be set aside which we hereby do. Thus the demand for the normal period will sustain, howev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot sustain and requires to be set aside which we hereby do. 7. In the result, we uphold the denial of credit on inputs / capital goods and towers/shelters used for setting up of telecommunication towers. The demand so raised will be restricted only to the normal period with no penalties. The demand for the extended period is set aside. In respect of the input services, the credit is held to be eligible and allowed. In respect of denial of exemption under Notification No.4/2004- the demand on this count is set aside. The appeals are partly allowed in the above terms. Appeal Nos. ST/610/2010 and ST/634/2010 8. The parties herein are hereafter referred to as assessee and department for sake of convenience. 9. Show cause notice was issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....699 8,571,6999 10. The issue for consideration in these appeals are identical to the issue in Appeal Nos. ST/244 and 301/2010. Therefore, adopting the same discussions we hold that the credit availed under the category of inputs / capital goods of the duty paid on MS angles, channels etc. as well as towers and shelters are not eligible. The demand being entirely within the normal period, however, for the very same discussions made above and following the decisions in Vodafone Essar South Ltd. Final Order No. 40194 to 40207/2018 dated 22.1.2018, the penalties are set aside. 11. With regard to the demand raised on input services, the facts reveal that the various input services on which assessee has availed credit are erection and ....