Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Rule 6(3B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, requiring reversal of 50% of Cenvat credit by a banking company, financial institution or non-banking financial company, applied to a manufacturing assessee providing taxable banking and other financial services on reverse charge basis.
Analysis: The scope of Rule 6(3B) was confined by its express wording to a banking company and a financial institution including a non-banking financial company. The definitions drawn from the Finance Act, 1994, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 showed that the assessee, whose principal business was manufacture of goods and not banking, deposit-taking or lending, did not fall within those categories. The rule could not be extended on the basis that the assessee performed services falling under the taxable head of banking and other financial services, because a taxing provision must be applied strictly according to its terms.
Conclusion: Rule 6(3B) did not apply to the assessee, and the demand for reversal of 50% of Cenvat credit, together with consequential interest and penalty, could not be sustained.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory restriction in a taxing rule applies only to those persons or entities expressly covered by its text and cannot be extended by analogy to an assessee whose business does not place it within the specified classes.