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>High Court Upholds Revenue's Appeal for Credit Segregation</h1> <h3>Lally Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner (Adjudication), Central Excise</h3> Lally Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner (Adjudication), Central Excise - 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 422 (Del.) , [2019] 69 G S.T.R. 375 (Del) Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to service tax credit on the entire amount paid versus proportionate amount.2. Clarificatory versus prospective nature of the Explanation added to Rule 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.3. Applicability of the extended period of limitation for tax, interest, and penalty.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Service Tax Credit on the Entire Amount Paid Versus Proportionate Amount:The appellant, engaged in sales and services of cars, claimed Cenvat credit on inputs and services. The adjudicating authority held that trading activities, exempt from service tax, should not allow for full Cenvat credit, only proportionate credit. The CESTAT upheld this, stating trading is not a taxable service and thus not covered under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal emphasized that trading, being an exempted service post-01.04.2011, should not have allowed for credit on input services used for trading. The High Court agreed, stating the appellant should have segregated and reversed the credit attributable to trading activities.2. Clarificatory Versus Prospective Nature of the Explanation Added to Rule 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:The appellant argued that the Explanation added to Rule 2(e) effective from 01.04.2011, which included trading as an exempted service, should not apply retrospectively. They cited various case laws to support that amendments affecting vested rights should not have retrospective effect. The High Court, however, found that trading was never taxable under the Finance Act, 1994, and the Explanation merely clarified the existing position. Therefore, the appellant's claim for full credit on inputs used in trading activities was unjustified even before the amendment.3. Applicability of the Extended Period of Limitation for Tax, Interest, and Penalty:The appellant contended that the extended period of limitation should not apply as there was no suppression of facts. They disclosed the entire Cenvat Credit availed in their returns. However, the adjudicating authority found that the appellant did not maintain separate accounts for taxable and non-taxable services, leading to wrongful credit availing. The High Court upheld this, stating that the appellant was aware of their trading activities being non-taxable and yet claimed credit, justifying the extended period of limitation. The method of proportionate turnover for calculating credit was deemed reasonable.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the appeal, answering all questions in favor of the Revenue. The appellant was required to segregate and reverse the credit attributable to trading activities, and the extended period of limitation was applicable due to their awareness and actions regarding the non-taxable trading activities.
TaxTMI 