9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Held that:- Similar disputes came before the Tribunal in the appellant s own case M/S BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED VERSUS CCE, JAIPUR [2017 (5) TMI 896 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that In the absence of any allegation of diversion of capital goods for other than intended purpose or their clearance to third party, the Revenue is not justified in denying credit on such capital goods wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious places at Pondicherry. We note that similar disputes came before the Tribunal in the appellant s own case. In BSNL Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2017-TIOL-2026-CESTAT-Delhi, the Tribunal observed as under:- 4.We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. We note that there is no dispute regarding eligibility of the appellant for Cenvat credit on various capital goods. The dispute is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble capital goods or clearance/diversion of such capital goods to a third party. The capital goods on which credit was taken were installed and utilized by the appellant at different locations in Rajasthan, for rendering taxable service. The appellants have centralized registration at jaipur. In fact, the entire proceedings against the appellant is by applying provision of Rule 3 (5) of Cenvat Cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leared as such to various other unregistered premises. We find no support for such understanding by Revenue. The Original Authority recorded that proviso to sub- Rule (5) of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was amended w.e.f. 01/04.2008, where the provider of output service need not pay the credit amount when the capital goods are removed outside the premises. We are of the view that in the abs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
