2018 (3) TMI 1129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se are that the appellant is engaged in providing cellular telecommunication services and during the period relevant for the purpose of present appeal, they were discharging their Service tax liability on telecommunication services, business support services, sponsored services and goods transport services, after obtaining centralized registration with the Service tax department. It is seen that as a result of Hon'ble Delhi High Court order passed on September, 19, 2007, demerger took place on 31/01/2008 and all the assets i.e. specific infrastructure were transferred by the appellant to M/s.Bharti Infrastructure Telecom (BIL). As per the appellant, the said towers are prefabricated building were not physically removed and were transferred ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts contention that demand stand raised by way of show cause notice on 20/04/2010 in respect of period ending on 31/01/2008 and is hopelessly barred by limitation. However, while confirming the demand he did not impose any penalty on the appellant on the ground that there was confusion in the department itself over the above issue. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case the show-cause notice has been invoked the provisions of Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the same has been held by the Ld. Adjudicating authority that provisions of Rule 35 of Central Excise Rules, are not applicable. He has gone beyond the scope of the show-cause notice by invoking provisions of Rule 10 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, whic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he same would like in the account books of transferor or in that case, the credit is required to be disallowed. The Rule nowhere suggest that the owner or the transferor of the business is legally bound to transfer the credit which cannot remain in existence. A similar issue has been examined by the Tribunal in the case of Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein it was observed that inputs and capital goods not having been removed from the factory premises of the assessee, who continue to have the complete control over the factory, the sale of certain capital goods would not invoke the provisions of Rule 10. In this case also relying on the decision of Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we hold that the provisions of Rule 10 of Cenvat C....