https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270414 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's stay petition unconditionally, clarifying the taxability of trading activities under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) category. The appellant's contention that trading was not considered exempted due to confusion was supported by the added Explanation to the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Tribunal found the appellant had a prima facie case on limitation, as they regularly filed returns indicating taxable services and total credits availed. This decision highlights the interpretation of the law, denial of CENVAT credit for mixed activities, and the limitation period for raising tax demands. en-us Thu, 24 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jan 2016 09:56:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270414 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's stay petition unconditionally, clarifying the taxability of trading activities under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) category. The appellant's contention that trading was not considered exempted due to confusion was supported by the added Explanation to the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Tribunal found the appellant had a prima facie case on limitation, as they regularly filed returns indicating taxable services and total credits availed. This decision highlights the interpretation of the law, denial of CENVAT credit for mixed activities, and the limitation period for raising tax demands. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 24 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270414