Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1339 - AT - Service TaxReversal of CENVAT Credit - Capital Goods cleared as waste and scrap - amount required to be paid in terms of rule 3(5A) of the Credit Rules for capital goods cleared as scrap - Appellant is output service provider - period of dispute in the present case is from 1.3.2011 to 16.3.2012 and 27.09.2013 to 31.03.2015 - HELD THAT:- In terms of payment of the amount under rule 3(5A) of the Credit Rules during the said relevant period, only a 'manufacturer' was required to pay the amount in case of clearance of capital goods as scrap and not an output service provider. The appellant, being an output service provider, was not required to pay any amount in terms of rule 3(5A) of the Credit Rules during the period involved in the present appeal for clearance of capital goods as scrap. Whether the capital goods involved in the present case which were cleared by the appellant without payment of any amount under rule 3(5A) of the Credit Rules can be considered as used capital goods or waste and scrap? - HELD THAT:- In the present case the appellant has also undertaken an internal procedure for determination of the nature of the capital goods to be cleared by it. The goods are thereafter sent to OEM and Chartered Engineer for further verification as to whether the goods qualify as scrap. Only when the goods have been certified that they were sold as to scrap management companies having registration under Hazardous Waste Management Rules - It is, therefore, clear that the capital goods cleared by the appellant would qualify as scrap and no amount was required to be paid while clearance of the same by the appellant. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is not necessary to examine the contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The impugned order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Additional Director, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|