M\/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry [sought to be changed to: \u201cThe Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy]
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 1063 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 20-6-2018
Application No. : ST\/MISC[CT]\/41392\/2017, Appeal No. : ST\/00116\/2011 – Final Order No. 42121\/2018
Service Tax
Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P Dinesha, Member (Judicial)
\nMs. D. Naveena, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri. K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Shri P. Dinesha,
\nThe appellant is providing Telecommunication Services to its clients. The appellant is availing service tax credit on the input services received a<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n it on such capital goods, had wrongly utilized the same with intent to evade payment of service tax in violation of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Show Cause Notice culminated in the Order-in-Original by the adjudicating authority after considering the submissions in reply by the appellant and by the impugned Order-in-Original No 9\/2010 dt. 14.12.2010, the adjudicating authority confirmed his propositions made in the Show Cause Notice. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this forum. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry [sought to be changed to: \u201cThe Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy]Service Tax2018 (9) TMI 1063 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 20-6-2018Application No. : ST\/MISC[CT]\/41392\/2017, Appeal No. : ST\/00116\/2011 – Final Order No. 42121\/2018Service TaxShri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member … Continue reading “M\/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry [sought to be changed to: \u201cThe Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy]”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13808","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13808","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13808"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13808\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13808"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13808"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13808"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. Heard Ms. D. Naveena, Advocate for the appellant and Shri. K. Veerabhadra Reddy, learned Department Representative for the Revenue.
\n3. During the course of hearing, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the issue <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n