M/S. Bsnl vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Chennai

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal11 September 2015

Case No.Appeal No. ST/159/2010

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A CENVAT credit claimant that takes capital goods to a customer's premises for installation and does not bring them back to its own premises within the 180-day period prescribed by Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, contravenes that rule, and where it has not sought extension of that period, the revisionary order holding the credit irregular is not legally infirm.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNALSOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAIAppeal No. ST/159/2010

(Arising out of Order-in-Revision No. 1/2009 dated 15.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai III)

M/s. BSNL Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Respondent

Appearance

None for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent

CORAM

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member

Date of Hearing / Decision: 11.09.2015

Final Order No. 41200 / 2015

The appellant is only buying time before Tribunal from 15.5.2015. On that date, appellants submission was to calculate demand on each count of allegation and submit to other side for verification. Accordingly, matter was adjourned to 19.6.2015. On 19.6.2015, no calculation sheet was provided either to other side or Bench. The receipt details were also called for on that day. There was no compliance even to that on today. Matter was adjourned to 17.7.2015. There was no Bench on 17.7.2015. The matter came up on 11.8.2015. Again there was a prayer on that date for adjournment to provide reconciliation statement. Consequently, matter was adjourned for today.

2. Today none present for appellant BSNL. For not providing the information to the Tribunal, it is not necessary to keep the appeal pending.

3. Revenue was heard and record was perused.

4. This appeal arose out of review order dated 15.12.2009. BSNL availed CENVAT credit on capital goods as has been described in para 2 of the review order. The revisionary authority noticed that when the capital goods were acquired by the BSNL for installation at the customers premises to provide output service that did not come back to its premises within the stipulated period of 180 days. That resulted in contravention of Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. BSNL also did not seek permission for extension of time beyond 180 days.

5. In view of contravention of the provision of law as above and specific ground in grounds of appeal raised sowing reason preventing to seek extension of time, the order of the revisionary authority does not appear to be suffering from legal infirmity, for which the appeal is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free