Appeals allowed, order set aside, matter remanded for reconsideration. Decision must be made within three months.

The tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the original authority for reconsideration in light of the tribunal's observations. The adjudicating authority was directed to decide the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Time Bar Issue
2. Eligibility under Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules
3. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on various input services
4. Nature of incomes earned by the Noticee and their classification
5. Reversal of credit under Rule 6(3A) of CCR for common input services

Detailed Analysis of Judgment:

1. Time Bar Issue:
The Commissioner acknowledged that the demand for the period from 1st April 2008 to 30th September 2008 is time-barred as the show cause notice was served on 17th April 2014. The total CENVAT credit for this period was Rs. 6,14,68,326/-, which was ordered to be dropped.

2. Eligibility under Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules:
Rule 6(5) allowed full CENVAT credit for specified services even if used partly for exempted services until 31.03.2011. The Commissioner identified five services that qualified under Rule 6(5) and allowed full credit amounting to Rs. 7,72,68,855/-.

3. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Various Input Services:
The Commissioner disallowed CENVAT credit for 21 services amounting to Rs. 2,05,14,207/- on the grounds that they did not qualify as "input services" under Rule 2(l) of the CCR. These services either had no direct nexus with the output services, were excluded post-1st April 2011, or were construction-related services. The Commissioner broadly categorized the reasons for disallowing the credit into four categories.

4. Nature of Incomes Earned by the Noticee:
The Commissioner examined various sources of income to determine if they constituted taxable or exempted services. Major findings included:
- Dividend Income: Not considered as service income.
- Profit on Sale of Investment: Treated as trading of goods and considered exempted service.
- Miscellaneous Receipts: Considered as income from exempted services due to lack of detailed information.
- Income from Long-Term Investment in Immovable Property: Not considered as service income.
- Exchange Gain: Not considered as service income.
- Guarantee Commission (Export): Considered taxable income.
- Profit on Sale of Current and Fixed Assets: Not considered as service income.
- Interest Income: Not considered as service income.

5. Reversal of Credit under Rule 6(3A) of CCR for Common Input Services:
The Commissioner applied the method as per Explanation 1(d) to Rule 6(3D) of the CCR to determine the value of exempted services for the entire disputed period. The total CENVAT credit attributable to common input services was calculated, and the allowable credit was determined to be Rs. 16,71,22,662/-. The balance credit of Rs. 34,37,05,962/- was disallowed and ordered to be recovered.

Additional Findings:
- Invocation of Extended Period: The Commissioner justified the invocation of the extended period for demand due to suppression of facts by the appellant. However, the tribunal found that the appellant had submitted all relevant information, and the department's failure to make specific inquiries could not justify the invocation of the extended period.
- Computational Errors: Both parties pointed out computational errors in the order. The tribunal remanded the matter back to the original authority for re-computation in accordance with the principles of law determined in the judgment.
- Penalties: The tribunal held that penalties under Rule 15(3) or 15(4) of the CCR read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, could not be sustained due to the absence of conditions for invoking the extended period of limitation.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the original authority for reconsideration in light of the tribunal's observations. The adjudicating authority was directed to decide the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

---