TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the items under dispute for providing the output service. It is found that an output service provider under Rule 3 of CCR is entitled to take cenvat credit on all such goods without any distinction as to inputs or capital goods for rendering taxable output service. Further, the show cause notice is mis-conceived for raising the dispute on the inputs being not capital goods. There are no merit in this appeal by the Revenue and the same is dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Service Tax Appeal No.52426 of 2019-SM - FINAL ORDER NO. 51911/2021 - Dated:- 22-10-2021 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Pradeep Gutpa, Authorised Representative for the appellant/Department. None for the respondent. ORDER The is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 2013-14 5,73,564/- 2 2014-15 30,55,090/- 3 2015-16 8,96,773/- Total 45,25.427/- 4. It appeared to Revenue that such credit has been wrongly taken in contravention of Rule 2(a) of CCR, wherein the capital goods have been defined, as aforementioned items do not appear to be qualified as capital goods. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 5.4.2017 was issued invoking extended period of limitation for disallowing cenvat credit of ₹ 45,25,425/. It was further proposed to impose penalty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used for providing taxable output service, the respondent is entitled under Rule 2 (a) read with Rule 2(k) of CCR to take cenvat credit, and have utilised such credit for payment of output tax. It was further observed that the items in dispute have been used by the respondent for construction /fabrication of structures for solar panels, which are capital goods for the respondent for providing output service. It was further observed that the items in dispute qualify as capital goods under Rule 2 (a) (A)(iii) in the definition of capital goods, which include components, spares and accessories of the goods specified at (i) and (ii). Further, reliance was placed on the ruling of the Tribunal in the case of RSPL Ltd. 2016 (338) ELT 607 (Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Tower Vision India Ltd. Vs. CCE 2016 (42) STR 249 (Tribunal-Larger Bench), wherein the Department with regard to credit on pre-fabricated telecom towers and shelters, M.S. Angles, Channels, were cleared as set of tower (in CKD condition) classifiable under Chapter 73 of CETA and pre-fabrication shelters falling under Chapter 94, these were disputed on the ground that these are excluded from the definition of capital goods. It was held that components, spares and accessories of capital goods should be understood as standing for movables only tower being immovable structure could not be accessory of any kind of instrument or machinery. Further, it is held that Base Transmission System (BTS) electronic equipment brought and ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it on all such goods without any distinction as to inputs or capital goods for rendering taxable output service. I further find that the show cause notice is mis-conceived for raising the dispute on the inputs being not capital goods. Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules provides - provider of output service shall be allowed to take credit of the duty paid of excise specified in the first Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act, leviable under the Excise Act, and also the credit of duty of excise specified in the second schedule of the Excise Tariff Act as well as education cess and higher education cess, on inputs or capital goods, used by the provider of output service, on or after 10th day of September, 2004. 10. Accordingly, I find no merit in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
