Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

international Testing Centre Vs. Cce

international Testing Centre vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 11, 2007
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46273

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

international Testing Centre

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In
(2008)12STJ60CESTATNew(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. the appellant challenges the order of the commissioner (appeals) holding that, the adjudicating authority had correctly disallowed the cenvat credit in respect of the personal phone installed at the residence of the assessee. according to the revenue, the appellant, m/s international testing centre, which appears to be a sole proprietory concern of mrs. santosh gupta, as per the verification in the memo of appeal, was engaged in providing technical testing services, which fall under clause 106 of section 65 of chapter v of the finance act, 1994.prima facie, it cannot be laid down that, as a rule, the telephone service installed at the residence cannot be used for business or professional purposes. the bills were in the name of the sole-proprietor, mrs. santosh gupta, and that, in such matters, the authorities should be open to appreciate the evidence that may be placed before it for showing as to what portion of the amount charged under the telephone bills was attributable to the taxable service provider for which the cenvat credit taken in respect of the input service, may be utilized.2. the applicant has made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount. there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of the amount payable under the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal. this application stands accordingly allowed. the appeal will come up for final hearing in its due course.(dictated and pronounced in the open court on the 11th day of october, 2007)

Full Judgment

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that, the adjudicating authority had correctly disallowed the Cenvat Credit in respect of the personal phone installed at the residence of the assessee. According to the Revenue, the appellant, M/s International Testing Centre, which appears to be a sole proprietory concern of Mrs. Santosh Gupta, as per the verification in the Memo of Appeal, was engaged in providing technical testing services, which fall under Clause 106 of Section 65 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994.

Prima facie, it cannot be laid down that, as a rule, the telephone service installed at the residence cannot be used for business or professional purposes. The bills were in the name of the sole-proprietor, Mrs. Santosh Gupta, and that, in such matters, the authorities should be open to appreciate the evidence that may be placed before it for showing as to what portion of the amount charged under the telephone bills was attributable to the taxable service provider for which the Cenvat Credit taken in respect of the input service, may be utilized.

2. The applicant has made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount. There shall be waiver of pre-deposit of the amount payable under the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal. This application stands accordingly allowed. The appeal will come up for final hearing in its due course.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on the 11th day of October, 2007)

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial