Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2021 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 306 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - inputs/capital goods - Angles, Channels, Beams, MS Tower parts (SS Mats) etc. used in erection and installation of towers - Pre-fabricated buildings/shelters/PUF panels used for housing/storage of generating sets and other components/equipments/spares etc. - denial on account of nexus with output services - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bharti Airtel Limited v. CCE, Pune-III [2014 (9) TMI 38 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has upheld the stand of the Department disallowing credit, while Hon’ble High Court that of Delhi held that credit is admissible in the case of Vodafone Mobile Services & Others [2018 (11) TMI 713 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. The jurisdictional High Court has not pronounced any judgment on this issue. Thus, it is clear that two High Courts have taken a completely contrary opinion in the matter having identical facts as the instant case. Both the decisions are appealed against and admitted and are for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court. We find that there is no judgement passed by the jurisdictional High Court on this issue. However, we find that Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tower Vision India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE [2016 (3) TMI 165 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] has deliberated the issue at length and decided that credit is not admissible. We are of the considered opinion that we are bound by the judgement of the larger Bench. Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, demand pertains to period 10.9.2004 to 30.09.2006. Show cause Notice has been issued on 06.07.2009, which is clearly beyond the period of limitation - There was difference of opinion between members of CESTAT. The issue was referred to Larger Bench. It clearly indicates that the issue involved is of interpretation of a question of Law and therefore, mala fides cannot be attributed. The appellants submitted that they have been regularly filing returns - Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka MTR Foods Ltd [2012 (10) TMI 165 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that under such circumstances, extended period cannot be invoked. While upholding the Revenue stand on merits, the appeals are allowed on limitation.
|