https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759621 The CESTAT NEW DELHI held that subscription and redemption of mutual fund units does not constitute trading of goods or securities, and therefore is not an exempted service under section 66D(e) of the Finance Act. The appellant was not required to reverse proportionate CENVAT credit on common input services. The tribunal found that mutual fund investment does not qualify as a service under section 65B(44) as it lacks the essential element of service provider rendering service to recipient for consideration. Additionally, the extended period of limitation was improperly invoked, as the department failed to discharge its responsibility under section 72 to scrutinize returns properly. Appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 01 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Oct 2024 10:35:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759621 The CESTAT NEW DELHI held that subscription and redemption of mutual fund units does not constitute trading of goods or securities, and therefore is not an exempted service under section 66D(e) of the Finance Act. The appellant was not required to reverse proportionate CENVAT credit on common input services. The tribunal found that mutual fund investment does not qualify as a service under section 65B(44) as it lacks the essential element of service provider rendering service to recipient for consideration. Additionally, the extended period of limitation was improperly invoked, as the department failed to discharge its responsibility under section 72 to scrutinize returns properly. Appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 01 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759621