TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Trading activity exempted from 01/04/2011, not retrospectively applied to disputed period. Department's appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>CCE, Bhopal Versus M/s My Car (Bhopal) Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Tribunal upheld the decision that trading activity was deemed exempted only from 01/04/2011 and not for the disputed period. As the amendment to the ... CENVAT credit - Department was of the view that since the respondent did not maintain separate accounts for the input services used towards the taxable activity as well as exempted activity, the respondent will be required to pay an amount in terms of Rule 6 (3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Held that: - The respondent has carried out, during the disputed period, the taxable service of authorized service station. They also carried out, from the same premises, the activity of trading of four wheelers. They have availed Cenvat Credit of various input services which the Department has claimed has been utilized both for the taxable service as well as trading. The activity of trading has come under the category of exempted service only w.e.f. 01/04/2011 and the said amendment carried out to Cenvat Credit Rules cannot be considered as having any retrospective effect - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:Department's appeal against order-in-Appeal No.34/BPL/2013 dated 05/02/2013 regarding Cenvat credit on various services, including trading activity considered as exempted service.Analysis:The Department filed an appeal against an order-in-Appeal regarding the appellant's availing of Cenvat credit on various services during 2010-2011, including trading activity considered as exempted service. The Department contended that since the appellant did not maintain separate accounts for input services used for taxable and exempted activities, they should pay under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Department argued that trading activity was to be considered exempted, even for the disputed period before the amendment. The respondent argued that trading was included as an exempted service only from 01/04/2011 and the notification could not have retrospective effect. The authorities held that the trading activity was considered exempted only from 01/04/2011 and dismissed the appeal, as the amendment to the Cenvat Credit Rules was not retrospective.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the authorities that the trading activity was deemed exempted only from 01/04/2011 and not for the disputed period. As the amendment to the Cenvat Credit Rules was not retrospective, the Department's appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
