<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (2) TMI 943 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375316</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit on common input services used for trading activity was not allowable for the period before 01.04.2011 because trading was neither a taxable service nor an exempted service under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and the later amendment was treated as operative only from that date; the denial of credit was upheld against the assessee. The extended period of limitation was also sustained because the credit was taken contrary to the scheme without separate records for trading and manufacturing use, and the conduct was not treated as a mere interpretational error; the longer limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was therefore properly invoked against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2019 06:33:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=558448" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 943 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375316</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit on common input services used for trading activity was not allowable for the period before 01.04.2011 because trading was neither a taxable service nor an exempted service under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and the later amendment was treated as operative only from that date; the denial of credit was upheld against the assessee. The extended period of limitation was also sustained because the credit was taken contrary to the scheme without separate records for trading and manufacturing use, and the conduct was not treated as a mere interpretational error; the longer limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was therefore properly invoked against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375316</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>