https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338782 Before 01.04.2011, trading was not expressly included as an exempted service, so Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 did not justify denial or reversal of common input service credit merely because part of the services related to trading activity; the credit attributable to trading for that earlier period was therefore not liable to be reversed. On limitation, where fraud, collusion or suppression with intent to evade duty was absent and the issue was debatable, the extended period under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not be invoked; the demand for the extended period was consequently time-barred. en-us Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Sep 2017 11:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338782 Before 01.04.2011, trading was not expressly included as an exempted service, so Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 did not justify denial or reversal of common input service credit merely because part of the services related to trading activity; the credit attributable to trading for that earlier period was therefore not liable to be reversed. On limitation, where fraud, collusion or suppression with intent to evade duty was absent and the issue was debatable, the extended period under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not be invoked; the demand for the extended period was consequently time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338782