By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JUNE 15, 2015: THIS is an appeal filed by the Revenue against an O-in-O passed by the CST, Mumbai.

It is the grievance of the Revenue that the adjudicating authority while denying the CENVAT credit had not ordered confiscation of the capital goods on which CENVAT credit was improperly availed.

The CESTAT observed that the subject o-in-o was appealed against by the respondent service provider and the Bench had held - 2015-TIOL-628-CESTAT-MUM as under -

ST - Appellants providing Telecommunication Service - CENVAT not admissible on towers and pre-fabricated buildings - As returns were filed periodically and audit was also conducted by the department, demands hit by limitation - Demand for normal period upheld along with interest - Penalties set aside as appellants entertained a bonafide belief: CESTAT

Therefore, in the matter of the instant appeal, the CESTAT held thus -

"…When the main appellant's case itself is decided by setting aside the extended period of limitation and the penalties imposed, holding that this could be an issue of interpretation, the question of confiscation of the capital goods does not arise."

Holding that the impugned order to the extent it is contested before the Bench is correct and legal and does not require any interference, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected.

(See 2015-TIOL-1133-CESTAT-MUM)