Case Law Details
Bharti Infratel Limited Vs Additional Director General (CESTAT Delhi)
Facts- The appellant removed certain capital goods, which were waste/ scrap, after their usage. At the time of removal, neither credit was reversed nor any amount was paid as the appellant believed that there was no requirement of payment/ reversal by an output service provider under rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
The proceedings were initiated by the department with respect to the capital goods which were removed as scrap without payment / reversal of amount. It was alleged that the capital goods removed by the appellant were not scrap.
Conclusion- The goods declared as scrap have been sold by the appellant to companies engaged in scrap management which have a certificate issued to them by the Principal Environment Commissioner, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, for procurement and recycling of scrap under the Hazardous Waste Management Rules. Further, the invoices through which these goods were sold to these companies also describe the good as scrap only.
The capital goods cleared as scrap by the appellant undergo an extensive procedure, after which based on the evaluation of a third-party vendor, the goods are declared scrap and sold to scrap management companies who have taken certificates for recycling the said scrap under the Hazardous E-waste Management Rules.
Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
