ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President
1. The authorities below have confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 5,961/- together with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount under the provisions of Rule 6 of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2004, on the ground that, inadmissible credit was taken on the bills issued in the name of the proprietor for telephone installed at her residential address and other bills were issued in the name of M/s Toshika International, Panchkula, which did not exist.
1.1. I have heard both sides. I find that in addition to residential premises at House No. 125, Shivalik Enclave, Mani Majra, the proprietor of the appellant, Mrs. Santosh Gupta, also had business premises at Panchkula throughout the period in dispute. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the Service Tax is admissible on the telephone installed at her residence which business premises existed and, where the business of testing in a lab was carried out. The Service Tax would be admissible on telephone installed at the business premises and not at the residence. Therefore, the credit availed on payments made for bills issued for Rs. 2223/- is not admissible to the appellant. However, credit of Rs. 3,738/-being the credit availed on payments made for bills issued by M/s BSNL, Chandigarh, for phones installed in the business premises at Panchkula, for the period from 09.11.2004 to 07.03.2005 is admissible. The credit of Rs. 183/-, Rs. 146/- and Rs. 211/- availed on payments made against the bills for telephones installed at Shivalik Enclave, Mani Majra, in the name of Shri Kesho R. Gupta, husband of Mrs. Santosh Gupta is not admissible. Penalty is required to be sustained for wrong availment of credit; however, since the Service Tax held to be inadmissible is a little over Rs. 2,000/-, I reduce the penalty from Rs. 5,961/- to Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand only). The appeal is thus partly allowed as above.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on the 17th day of December, 2007)
