Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 29 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT credit - transfer of capital goods to their sister unit - Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - whether in terms of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the capital goods are required to be physically removed or mere transfer can be said that goods have been removed? - Held that: - appellant is not required to reverse the Cenvat credit as the goods have not been physically removed from their premises to their sister unit - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner Versus Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. [2015 (10) TMI 660 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that no liability arises to reverse Cenvat credit availed by the CESTAT since there was no physical removal of such goods. As the goods have been transferred to their sister unit, in that circumstance, it is a Revenue neutrality situation. In that circumstance also, the appellant is not required to reverse the Cenvat credit. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - As there were divergent views of various High Courts during the relevant period, in that circumstance, the show cause notice cannot be issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|