Case Law Details
Srinivasa Transports Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Hyderabad)
It is evident from the records that the appellant has rendered both Port service and Cargo Handling Service as well as several other services and paid service tax on these services. The vehicles in question were not used by them for providing these services. The show cause notice has not brought forth any evidence that the vehicles in question were not used for cargo handling services. When a show cause notice was issued, the burden of proving facts and allegations in the show cause notice rests on the department and not on the noticee. Apart from this, it would stand to reason that the motor vehicles would be used for cargo handling as well as for other services within port. Having bought motor vehicles it is unlikely that the appellant would use exclusively them for one service and not for the other. As long as the appellant has used motor vehicles for rendering Cargo Handling Services on which they have paid service tax, they are entitled to CENVAT Credit on capital goods. The motor vehicles need not be used exclusively for providing cargo handling or other listed services. The mere fact that they have also used motor vehicles for some other purposes does not deprive them of their CENVAT Credit on motor vehicles.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
1. This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. VIZ-EXCUS-001-APP-019-18-19, dated 20.04.2018.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
