Disposed

M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner Central Excise & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Feb 2011CWP/1507/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a Tribunal order rejecting a waiver plea. Without expressing an opinion on merits, the court directed the grant of a complete waiver to the petitioner pending appeal hearing.

What did the court decide?

direction to grant complete waiver to the petitioner for the purpose of hearing its appeal.

M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No.1507 of 2011 Date of decision: 4.2.2011

¶3

M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Mobile).

¶4

-----Petitioner.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Commissioner of Central Excise & another.

¶7

-----Respondents.

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶9

Present:Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Vishav Bharti, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the respondents.

¶11

¶12

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

¶13

This petition has been filed for quashing of order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, respondent No.2, dated 29.10.2010, rejecting the plea for waiver of demand on account of wrongful availment of Service Tax Credit and CENVAT Credit, as per CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (for short, “the Rules”) framed under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

¶14

Case of the petitioner is that its services are taxable under the heading ‘Telecommunication Service’ under the

¶15

C.W.P. No.1507 of 2011

¶16

¶17

provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. As per the rules, it can avail of CENVAT Credit on the inputs on which excise duty has been paid. The petitioner purchased inputs for construction of towers for providing telecommunication services and claimed CENVAT Credit on the said inputs which has been declined, against which the petitioner has approached the Tribunal. According to the petitioner, it was fully justified in claiming CENVAT Credit on inputs and there was no justification for requiring the same to be reversed. In a similar matter, Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in its order in IDEA Cellular Ltd. v. CCE 2009 (16) STR 80 (Tri.Ahmd.) granted complete waiver following identical order of the Bombay Bench referred to therein.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that Bombay Bench and Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal granted complete waiver in identical circumstances.

¶19

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on merits, we direct grant of complete waiver to the petitioner for the purpose of hearing of its appeal.

¶20

The petition is disposed of.

¶21

(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE

¶22

February 04, 2011	( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL )
ashwani	JUDGE

M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner Central Excise & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner Central Excise & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pinki Devi & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Anil Jain Vs Parveen Mittal

M/S Manu Concast Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Pb Steels, Mandi Gobindgarh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Punjab Rice Mills and Anr. Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors.

The Comm. of It, Faridabad Vs M/S Voith Paper Fabric Ind. Ltd.