9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile the copy of the Judgment, which has been placed on record, denotes two other dates, that is, the dates on which the judgment was signed. The Technical Member, evidently, signed the judgment on 03.08.2012, where as the Judicial Member signed the same on 06.08.2012. Be that as it may. The only issue which arises in the appeal is as to whether the assessee, which in this case is BSNL, could have claimed CENVAT credit in respect of capital equipment, which was removed for use to another place within the same zone. 2. In order to adjudicate upon the instant appeal, the following broad facts are required to be noticed. 2.1. The assessee is in the business of providing telephone services throughout India. In order to render a service, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 29.10.2008 set aside the Order-In-Original dated 26.03.2007 and remanded the matter with a direction to examine the matter from a technological point of view and also with regard to the issue, which was at the heart of the matter, that is, as to whether the assessee could claim CENVAT credit, when capital equipment which was received by one SSA was used by another SSA. 4. Based on the aforementioned direction, the adjudicating authority passed a fresh Order-In-Original dated 20.07.2009, whereby, once again, it confirmed the demand for tax amounting to Rs. 1,15,86,320/- (Rupees one crore fifteen lakhs eighty six thousand three hundred and tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the impugned judgment is unsustainable as CENVAT credit can be availed of by the assessee, only if the capital goods, qua which credit for tax paid is taken, are used by the SSA, in which it is received. 6.1. This arguments of the learned counsel is pivoted, on her interpretation of provisions of Rule 3(1) (i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted herein below: "3 (1) A manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of [output] service shall be allowed to take credit (hereinafter referred to as the CENVAT credit) of- (i) the duty of excise specified in the First Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act, leviable under the Excise Act: [Provided that CENVAT credit of such duty of excise sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ital goods were removed by the service provider to provide output services. 8. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. Clearly there is no dispute about the fact that the assessee had purchased the capital goods for Salem SSA, which were used by other SSAs. 9.1.Consequently, the factum of removal of the capital goods from the premises, in which they were received is not in dispute. It is also not disputed before us that though the capital goods were removed to a place outside the premises of Salem SSA, they continued to be used by other SSAs, who had not, in fact, claimed CENVAT credit qua the very same equipment. 9.2. Therefore, as correctly argued by Mr.Natarajan, the assessee cannot be denied the righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
