<?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>2026 (1) TMI 652 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784896</link>
    <description>Whether activity constitutes trading: The tribunal found the appellant&#039;s procurement and supply of goods and gift vouchers falls within ordinary/commercial &quot;trading activity&quot; under CCR 2004; outcome: activity is trading (against appellant). Whether gift vouchers are actionable claims: The tribunal held vouchers are goods-in-lieu, not actionable claims, so their trading attracts Rule 6 consequences; outcome: Rule 6 applies. Admissibility of CENVAT credit (pre-1.4.2011 and 1.4.2011-31.3.2016 and post-2016): The Explanation to the amendment clarifies restriction was declaratory; credit attributable to trading was inadmissible before 1.4.2011 and, from 1.4.2011 onward trading is deemed exempted so Rule 6(1) mandates denial absent strict compliance with reversal/accounting; outcome: credits disallowed for all periods without Rule 6 compliance. Limitation, interest and penalties: Non-declaration in returns justified invocation of extended limitation, interest is automatic, and penalties upheld (limited waiver under Section 80 for certain pre-2015 periods).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2026 08:56:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=878292" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 652 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784896</link>
      <description>Whether activity constitutes trading: The tribunal found the appellant&#039;s procurement and supply of goods and gift vouchers falls within ordinary/commercial &quot;trading activity&quot; under CCR 2004; outcome: activity is trading (against appellant). Whether gift vouchers are actionable claims: The tribunal held vouchers are goods-in-lieu, not actionable claims, so their trading attracts Rule 6 consequences; outcome: Rule 6 applies. Admissibility of CENVAT credit (pre-1.4.2011 and 1.4.2011-31.3.2016 and post-2016): The Explanation to the amendment clarifies restriction was declaratory; credit attributable to trading was inadmissible before 1.4.2011 and, from 1.4.2011 onward trading is deemed exempted so Rule 6(1) mandates denial absent strict compliance with reversal/accounting; outcome: credits disallowed for all periods without Rule 6 compliance. Limitation, interest and penalties: Non-declaration in returns justified invocation of extended limitation, interest is automatic, and penalties upheld (limited waiver under Section 80 for certain pre-2015 periods).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784896</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>