2018 (9) TMI 1063 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - capital goods - denial on the ground that the appellant having acquired the capital goods on which it had availed credit from its registered premises, had not brought it back to their registered premises even after 180 days - Held that - The issue is decided in the case of BSNL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI 2012 (12) TMI 112 - CESTAT, CHENNAI , where it was held that If any Inputs or Capital goods are removed outside the premises of the provider of output service for providing such service, there is no requirement for any demand of duty or reversal of credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Availing service tax credit on input services and capital goods credit
- Show Cause Notice for not bringing back capital goods within 180 days
- Allegation of suppression of fact and intent to evade payment of service tax
- Order-in-Original confirming the propositions made in the Show Cause Notice
- Appeal challenging the Order-in-Original

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in providing Telecommunication Services, availed service tax credit on input services and capital goods credit of Cenvat duty paid on capital goods received. The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a Show Cause Notice alleging that the appellant had not brought back capital goods to their registered premises within 180 days, resulting in suppression of fact and wrongful utilization of credit to evade service tax payment, violating Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Order-in-Original confirmed these allegations, leading to the appellant's appeal before the forum.

During the hearing, the appellant's Advocate cited judgments in the appellant's own cases where the Tribunal had decided similar issues in favor of the assessee. The Advocate argued that since there were no changes in facts or circumstances, the previous decisions should be followed. The Department Representative supported the lower authority's findings, but the forum, considering the submissions, decided to follow the previous decisions in favor of the assessee, as no new facts were presented by the Revenue to warrant a deviation from the established precedents.

Additionally, a Miscellaneous Application for a change of Cause Title was filed by the Department due to the reorganization of Commissionerates and jurisdiction changes. The forum allowed the Department's application for the change in Cause Title, directing the respondent's name to be updated accordingly. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs, if any, indicating a favorable outcome for the appellant based on the forum's decision to follow previous judgments in similar cases.