https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333020 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, ruling that trading activities cannot be considered exempted services under Rule 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period up to 2009-2010. The denial of cenvat credit by lower authorities was found inconsistent with statutory provisions as trading was not explicitly included as an exempted service before April 1, 2011. Therefore, the requirement to maintain separate accounts or pay additional amounts under Rule 6(3)(A) did not apply, leading to the Tribunal overturning the impugned order and allowing the appeal. en-us Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Apr 2017 15:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333020 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, ruling that trading activities cannot be considered exempted services under Rule 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period up to 2009-2010. The denial of cenvat credit by lower authorities was found inconsistent with statutory provisions as trading was not explicitly included as an exempted service before April 1, 2011. Therefore, the requirement to maintain separate accounts or pay additional amounts under Rule 6(3)(A) did not apply, leading to the Tribunal overturning the impugned order and allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333020