Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (11) TMI 1349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Court of Bombay in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III [2014 (9) TMI 38 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in somewhat similar circumstances has held that CENVAT credit would not be admissible - Therefore for the normal period, it has to be held that appellant is not eligible for the benefit of CENVAT credit. Since the issue is a debatable one and arguable one and in view of the fact that extended period has been held as not invokable, in my opinion, penalty cannot be imposed. In view of the above discussion, the demand for CENVAT credit within the normal period with interest is upheld and penalty and demand for the period beyond the normal period are set aside. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - ST/326/2010-SM - Final Order No. 20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and by reason of which they cease to be goods. The fact of their cessation to be goods excludes them from the purview of excisable gods and accordingly availment of credit on any material that goes into these structures become irregular credit in as much as these structures are neither manufactured nor excisable goods. iii. Uni Ads have also taken Cenvat Credit of Service Tax of ₹ 14,014/- paid on car insurance which is not input service for providing of their output service as there is no nexus between the car insurance and their output service i.e., Advertising Agency Service. Further, Uni Ads have failed to produce the Original Bill / Invoice / Challan in respect of Credit availed on Car Insurance [Invoice / Bill No. 180137231 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble property and they can be removed from one place and installed in another place. This is a very debatable issue. Even though photographs were produced on going through the photographs, it is difficult to come to a conclusion. Nevertheless it is quite clear that the issue is debatable and on this ground itself extended period could not have been invoked since two ways are possible. It was pointed out by the learned AR that Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III [2014(35) STR 865 (Bom.)] in somewhat similar circumstances has held that CENVAT credit would not be admissible. Para 31 32 of this order are relevant and are reproduced below:- 31. In the light of the aforesaid discussion we examine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d be treated as 'capital goods' and credit be allowed, also is not acceptable. It is clear that each of the component had independent functions and hence, they cannot be treated and classified as single unit. It is clear that all capital goods are not eligible for credit and only those relatable to the output services would be eligible for credit. The goods in question in any case cannot be held to be capital goods for the purpose of Cenvat credit as they are neither components, spares and accessories of goods falling under any of the chapters or headings of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule as specified in sub-clause (i) of the capital goods. Hence a combined reading of sub-clauses (a) (A) (i) and (iii) and sub‑rule (2) indi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... diesel oil, high speed diesel oil, motor spirit, commonly known as petrol and motor vehicles, used for providing any output service. Explanation (2) of sub-rule (k) is also which provides that input include goods used in the manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacturer. A plain reading of the definition of input indicates that in the present context, clause (i) of Rule 2(k) may not be of relevance as same pertains to manufacturing activity and pertains to goods used in relation to manufacture of final product or any other purpose within the factory of production. Sub-clause (ii) has been referred to as relevant by the appellant as the same pertains to goods except light diesel oil, high speed diesel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates