C.C.E., Bhopal vs M/S. S.S. Crop Care Ltd on 8 April, 2010
In support of his submission, he placed reliance on CCE vs Excel Crop Care Ltd. 2008 (12) S.T.R. 436 (Guj.)
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (1.47 seconds)I.T.C. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, New ... on 10 September, 2004
7. I have carefully gone through the submissions made by both the sides. In the impugned order, the input service credit is denied holding that the mobile phones have been given to the employees as perquisite and is treated as a fringe benefit just like a staff car or a laptop or a housing facility. Therefore, the items given to the employees as part of the remuneration package is a fringe benefit cannot be treated as an input service. These facilities can be used either for official or for personal purpose and there is no direction in terms of the desired usage and input credit service was denied. On the similar findings, this Tribunal in the case of ITC Ltd. (supra) has held that the assessee is entitled for input service credit on the mobile phone services. I have also gone through the adjudication order wherein the adjudicating authority has also found that considering the provision of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the Master Circular No. 97/8/2007-S.T. dated 23.08.2007, I am convinced that the assessee is eligible for availment of CENVAT credit on mobile phones and the same allegation against the appellant in the show-cause notice which has held in favour of the appellant. The adjudicating authority has denied the input service credit on the premise that the mobile phones are not registered at the factory premises. Although the adjudicating authority has dealt with the show-cause notice and decided in favour of the appellant but denied input service credit on some other premises and the lower appellate authority has gone beyond the scope of show-cause notice. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable. As the issue in show-cause notice has been decided by the adjudicating authority and the Revenue has not preferred an appeal against that order, the adjudication order with regard to the admissibility of mobile phones as alleged in show-cause notice has attained finality. Hence, the appellants are entitled for input service credit on mobile phones in the facts and circumstances of the case.
1