TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1597
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....richy, however the said goods had been distributed from the Stores to 290 exchanges for installation and further utilization. It appeared that as per Rule 3 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules and second proviso thereto, as it stood prior to 1.4.2008, when capital goods on which cenvat credit has been taken are removed as such from the premises of the provider of output service, the provider of output service shall pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such capital goods except when the capital goods are brought back to the premises from where they had been removed within 180 days of their removal or within such extended period not exceeding 180 days as may be permitted by the jurisdictional Deputy / Asst. Commissioner. It therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....007 to September 2008, however SCN was issued only on 17.10.2012. Extended period cannot be invoked for the simple reason that suppression cannot be alleged against Public Sector Undertaking of Govt. of India. Therefore the entire demand is hit by limitation. ii) Relevant provision in Rule 3 (5) of the CCR 2004 for return of capital goods within 180 days was in force only till 31.3.2008, however w.e.f. 1.4.2008 unrestricted removal of capital goods was allowed for service providers. In the appellant's case credit was taken on most of the capital goods during later part of 2007-08 and new rule takes effect before the date of completion of 180 days. Therefore benefit of the new rule is available to appellants. iii) Return of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods from the Stores to 290 exchanges, we find that the issue stands squarely covered by the decision in the appellant's own case cited by Ld. Advocate, in the case of BSNL Vs CCE Jaipur reported in 2017-TIOL-2026-CESTAT-DEL. The relevant part of the said Tribunal's decision is reproduced 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 the appellants have cleared these capital goods to various premises for installation. Since, the credit on these goods were taken indicating the registered premises, it was alleged that, their clearance to various other unregistered premis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n directly. However, the Revenue did not raise objection in the present proceedings regarding credit availed on such goods by the appellant. The recovery now sought to be made is on the presumption that all capital goods have been received to a registered premises and thereafter were cleared '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 absence of any allegation of diversion of capital goods for other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redit of Rs. 9,83,075/-, we find that reason for rejection is that post offices are not registered with the department and such Statements / bills / invoices raised by them do not become a valid document prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules for availing input service credit. We take note that the Ld. Advocate has adduced proof of the Registration Certification No. TMPAS5321NST001 issued to the Senior Post Master, Head Post office, Trichy, copy of which has also been filed in pages 46-47 of the paper book. This being so, just because the registration certificate has not been mentioned in the TRC document issued by the Post Master, this by itself should not be a reason for denial of input service credit, especially when considering that al....