Page 218 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

120 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, Advocate, for the
Appellant.
Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner
(AR), for the Respondent.
[Order per : Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T)]. - After hearing both the
sides duly represented by Learned Advocate Shri Vineet Kumar Singh on behalf
of the appellant and Learned AR Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh on behalf of the
Revenue, we note that in the present case the appellant is providing ‘Telecom
Services’. During the process of providing said service, the appellant also collects
and pays Interconnection Usage Charges (IUC). Interconnection Usage Charges
are paid by different telecom service provider to each other. From the proceed-
ings, we note that the appellant is having 43 offices and the same during the pe-
riod from 2008-09 to 2011 were having separate Service Tax registration. Service
related to Interconnection Usage were provided by said 43 Service Tax registered
Secondary Switching Areas (SSA’s). However, as per the guidelines issued by
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), appellant had to create one single
office called Inter-Operator Billing & Accounting System to take care of billing in
respect of interconnection usage charges for 43 secondary switching areas. The
said inter-operator billing and accounting system used to raise and settle bills
among different telecom operators. Whenever the other telecom operator pro-
vided interconnection usage to the appellant, they raised bill on the appellant
and such bill was processed at inter-operator billing and accounting system. The
said office also known as IOABAS used to take Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid
on the usage charges paid to other telecom operators. Further, appellant was
providing interconnection usage to other telecom operators and collecting inter-
connection usage charges from other telecom operators. Appellant was paying
Service Tax on the same. For payment of said Service Tax, appellant used Cenvat
credit of Service Tax paid by appellant to the other telecom operators along with
interconnection usage charges paid to the other telecom operators. Revenue has
raised objection at availment of said credit by the appellant on the ground that
the IOABAS offices is neither providing any service nor receiving any services
and it is only a simple billing office. Therefore, the demand was raised and it was
confirmed through the impugned order. On hearing the arguments of Learned
Counsel and appreciating the facts on record on hearing from Learned AR for
Revenue and on perusal of record, we note that IOABAS is part and parcel of the
BSNL and appellant is also part and parcel of BSNL and it is only a separate sec-
tion created for handling work as per the guidelines of Telecom Regulatory Au-
thority of India. We note that from the same IOABAS, Revenue has accepted
payment of Service Tax, therefore, there are no grounds for Revenue to deny
Cenvat credit to IOABAS since IOABAS and BSNL are one and the same. We,
therefore, do not find any merit in the impugned order, the same is set aside and
appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced and dictated in Court)

_______

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  282