Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 805 - CESTAT CHENNAICENVAT Credit - capital goods - motor vehicle - General Insurance Service on cash vans - HELD THAT:- The definition of “capital goods” covers motor vehicles other than those inter alia used for providing output service and Sub-clause (B) requires registration in the name of the provider of output service. Hence, when the assessee is trying to make out a case that the cash vans in question are its capital goods, then it has to necessarily prove that the same are registered in its name and that the same were registered in its name during the length of the period of dispute involved. Otherwise, the appellant would not satisfy that the same is capital goods and hence, will be covered under the exclusion clause to Rule 2 (l) ibid. Further, there is a clear finding by the lower authorities that the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence in its support to prove that the motor vehicle is registered in its name and hence, the lower authorities did not have the benefit of the registration certificate furnished for the first time before this forum - Further, the period of dispute is from April 2013 to September 2015 and October 2015 to June 2017 whereas the photocopy of registration certificate reflects the date of registration as 25.11.2014. Mere filing of photocopy of registration certificate before this forum, that too for the first time, would not help anyone since it has to be established that those very vehicles were in fact used and for this, the Tribunal cannot go into this aspect - In view of this, photocopy of the registration certificate cannot be accepted since its relevance has neither been explained nor established and therefore, the case of the appellant falls back to the position where there is a categorical finding of the Adjudicating Authority as to non-furnishing of supporting documentary proof. The appellant has not been able to discharge the burden as to registration in its name and hence, there are no merit in the contentions of the assessee. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|