Capital goods sent to customer’s premises for providing output service not received within 180 days.

PJ/CASE LAW/2016-17/3098

Case:-BSNL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI

Citation:- 2016 (41) S.T.R. 124 (Tri. - Chennai)

Brief Facts:-The appellant is only buying time before Tribunal from 15-5-2015. On that date, appellant’s submission was to calculate demand on each count of allegation and submit to other side for verification. Accordingly, matter was adjourned to 19-6-2015. On 19-6-2015, no calculation sheet was provided either to other side or Bench. The receipt details were also called for on that day. There was no compliance even to that on today. Matter was adjourned to 17-7-2015. There was no Bench on 17-7-2015. The matter came up on 11-8-2015. Again there was a prayer on that date for adjournment to provide reconciliation statement. Consequently, matter was adjourned for today.

Appellant Contentions:-Today none present for appellant BSNL. For not providing the information to the Tribunal, it is not necessary to keep the appeal pending.

Respondent Contentions:-Revenue was heard and record was perused.
Reasoning of Judgement:- This appeal arose out of review order dated 15-12-2009. BSNL availed Cenvat credit on capital goods as has been described in para 2 of the review order. The revisionary authority noticed that when the capital goods were acquired by the BSNL for installation at the customers’ premises to provide output service that did not come back to its premises within the stipulated period of 180 days. That resulted in contravention of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. BSNL also did not seek permission for extension of time beyond 180 days.
In view of contravention of the provision of law as above and specific ground in grounds of appeal raised showing reason preventing to seek extension of time, the order of the revisionary authority does not appear to be suffering from legal infirmity, for which the appeal is dismissed.

Decision:-Appeal dismissed.

Comment:- The gist of the case is that when the capital goods which were acquired by the appellant for installation at the customers’ premises to provide output service and the same did not come back to its premises within the stipulated period of 180 days, there occurred contravention of the provisions of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Further, since appellant also did not seek permission for extension of time beyond 180 days, the contravention of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is established. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. However, there is no time limit prescribed in the present Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Prepared By:- Neelam Jain

Comments

PJ/CASE LAW/2016-17/3098

Post a Comment

Query