https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769884 CESTAT Hyderabad allowed appellant's appeals regarding irregular Cenvat Credit on exempted services and inputs related to e-boarding facility supply/installation and mutual fund transactions. The tribunal held that mutual fund subscription/redemption cannot be classified as trading of goods or exempted service under section 66D(e) of Finance Act, 1994, as it lacks service provider-recipient relationship for consideration. Following coordinate bench precedent, the tribunal found no trading of security occurred, making Rule 6 application unsustainable. Demand was set aside on merit without examining limitation issues. Penalty under section 78 was also set aside as appellants paid amounts with interest before show cause notice issuance. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Apr 2025 17:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769884 CESTAT Hyderabad allowed appellant's appeals regarding irregular Cenvat Credit on exempted services and inputs related to e-boarding facility supply/installation and mutual fund transactions. The tribunal held that mutual fund subscription/redemption cannot be classified as trading of goods or exempted service under section 66D(e) of Finance Act, 1994, as it lacks service provider-recipient relationship for consideration. Following coordinate bench precedent, the tribunal found no trading of security occurred, making Rule 6 application unsustainable. Demand was set aside on merit without examining limitation issues. Penalty under section 78 was also set aside as appellants paid amounts with interest before show cause notice issuance. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769884