2017 (12) TMI 1298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....along with interest thereon, and imposed penalty of like amount under rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The dispute pertains to availment of CENVAT credit on input services that were allegedly utilised in common for both producing excisable goods and rendering exempted service by the appellant. It would appear that the appellant is also in the business of trading which, being an exempted activity, would not be entitle them to availment of credit of tax paid on input service that was utilized for such activity. 2. Learned Counsel for appellant contends that 'exempted services' were, up to 31st March, 2011, deferred as those which were : 'exempt from the whole of service tax leviable thereon and includes services on which No service ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Government has No power to amend the Rule with retrospective effect. This can be done only by an Act. We agree with ld. Sr. Advocate's contentions in this regard. We also find support for the same from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd. reported in 2009 (14) S.T.R. 593 (S.C.). An explanation was appended to Section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 vide Finance Act, 2008. The said explanation started with the words "For the removal of doubts...." In this context, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 24 has observed - "24...... If by reason of the said explanation, the taxing net has been widened, it cannot be held to be retrospective in operation. No doubt, the explanation begins with the wo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....service tax prior to the realization of taxable services, in any circumstances. This being so, it is not legally permissible to give retrospective effect to the Explanation inserted in Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules. The Legislative intention behind the amendments was explained by the Board as for plugging avoidance of tax on the ground of non-realization of money from associated enterprises and the intention of the Legislature in bringing the amendments is to introduce a new provision and not to remove any doubts in the existing provision. It is not, nor can it be, anybody's case that Explanation shall always take effect retrospectively. In the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Skycell Communications Ltd. [2008 (232) ELT 434], the Larger....