https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353029 Trading was not an exempted service for the period before 1 April 2011 because the explanation inserted by Notification No. 3/2011-CE (N.T.) was treated as a substantive amendment operating prospectively only. As a result, common input service CENVAT credit could not be denied on the footing that trading fell within exempted services for the earlier period, and the penalty based on that denial was also unsustainable. en-us Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:10:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353029 Trading was not an exempted service for the period before 1 April 2011 because the explanation inserted by Notification No. 3/2011-CE (N.T.) was treated as a substantive amendment operating prospectively only. As a result, common input service CENVAT credit could not be denied on the footing that trading fell within exempted services for the earlier period, and the penalty based on that denial was also unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353029