2018 (9) TMI 1063 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT credit – capital goods – denial on the ground that the appellant having acquired the capital goods on which it had availed credit from its registered premises, had not brought it back to their registered premises even after 180 days – Held that:- The issue is decided in the case of BSNL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI [2012 (12) TMI 112 – CESTAT, CHENNAI], where it was held that If any Inputs or Capital goods are removed outside the premises of the provider of output service for providing such service, there is no requirement for any demand of duty or reversal of credit – appeal allowed – decided in favor of assessee. – Application No.: ST/MISC[CT]/41392/2017, Appeal No.: ST/001
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ght it back to their registered premises even after 180 days and the appellant, having not brought back the above capital goods within 180 days had not applied for extension of the period. This, according to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), had resulted in suppression of fact of removal of capital goods from its registered premises which was not brought back within 180 days and, therefore, having availed the credit on such capital goods, had wrongly utilized the same with intent to evade payment of service tax in violation of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Show Cause Notice culminated in the Order-in-Original by the adjudicating authority after considering the submissions in reply by the appellant and by the impugned Order-i
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
5.1 We have considered the rival submissions and as submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the assessee, we find that in the said orders the Tribunal has considered the very same issue and decided the same in favour of the assessee. This being so, we follow the same decisions as the Revenue has not brought out any change in facts or circumstances, to deviate from the above decisions. 5.2 The Miscellaneous Application for change of Cause Title has been filed by Department consequent to the reorganization of Commissionerates and the resultant change in the jurisdiction. The Department s application for change in Cause Title is allowed and it is directed that the respondent s name in the Cause Title be changed to: The Commissioner of G.S.T. &
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =