https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365219 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that trading activity does not qualify as a service under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant's availing of Cenvat Credit on input services for trading was deemed ineligible, as trading involves property transfer for financial consideration, not covered by the rules. The Tribunal emphasized that Cenvat Credit is only available for output services, not for trading activities, based on legal precedents from the Hon'ble Madras High Court and Tribunal orders. The appellant's failure to maintain separate accounts for input services led to a demand for payment under Rule 6(3a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. en-us Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Aug 2018 06:10:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365219 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that trading activity does not qualify as a service under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant's availing of Cenvat Credit on input services for trading was deemed ineligible, as trading involves property transfer for financial consideration, not covered by the rules. The Tribunal emphasized that Cenvat Credit is only available for output services, not for trading activities, based on legal precedents from the Hon'ble Madras High Court and Tribunal orders. The appellant's failure to maintain separate accounts for input services led to a demand for payment under Rule 6(3a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365219