9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 439 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - inputs - angles, channels and beams etc., used to erect the towers and pre-fabricated buildings on which transmission equipments were installed - Held that - the matter is already been decided against the appellant by Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd., Vs CCE, Pune-III 2014 (9) TMI 38 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where on similar inputs, it was held that the subject items are neither capital goods u/r 2(a) nor inputs u/r 2(k) of the Credit Rules - the appellant-assessee will not be eligible to avail the cenvat credit on angles, channels and beams etc. used to erect the impugned towers. Imposition of penalty - Held that - the issue is interpretational in nature. Concerning the eligibility of credit on the parts used in the towers, there has been sufficient confusion in the matter. It is also not disputed that there was more than one view in the matter - penalty set aside - extended period of limitation also set aside. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of assessee.
Issues involved: Eligibility of credit on structural items under Chapter Heading 73 as capital goods.
Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility of credit on structural items under Chapter Heading 73 as capital goods The main dispute in the appeals revolved around the eligibility of CENVAT credit on angles, channels, and beams used for erecting towers and pre-fabricated buildings. The appellant argued that these items were crucial for providing telecommunication services and should be considered capital goods. The department, however, contended that these items fell under Chapter Heading 73 and were not eligible for credit as capital goods. The tribunal noted that similar issues had been decided against the appellant in previous cases by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and a Larger Bench. Consequently, the tribunal held that the appellant was not entitled to avail CENVAT credit on the structural items used for erecting towers. Issue 2: Penalty and limitation period Regarding penalties and the limitation period, the tribunal found that the issue was interpretational in nature, leading to confusion and differing views. Citing legal precedents, the tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant and ruled that demands beyond the limitation period would be set aside. However, demands within the normal limitation period were upheld. The tribunal emphasized that penalties under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, along with section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, were to be set aside. The appeals were disposed of with consequential reliefs as applicable. Issue 3: Specific appeals In specific appeals, where the Original Authority had disallowed credit on certain items, the tribunal restored the original orders for demands within the normal limitation period. The penalties imposed in these cases were also set aside based on the reasons outlined in previous decisions. Issue 4: Disputed demand due to missing invoices In one appeal, apart from the eligibility dispute, there was a demand related to credit taken on invoices not produced for verification. The appellant argued that they were unable to produce the invoices during adjudication but had since located some invoices that could reduce the demand. The tribunal remanded this appeal to the Original Authority for further proceedings based on the newly discovered invoices. In conclusion, the appeals were partly allowed, partly remanded, or partly set aside based on the specific issues and circumstances of each case. The tribunal provided detailed reasoning for its decisions, considering legal precedents and interpretations relevant to the eligibility of credit on structural items under Chapter Heading 73 as capital goods.
|
