2018 (2) TMI 1238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri N. Satwani, A.R. - for the Respondent-Revenue ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both sides. 2. This Appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.VAD-EXCUS-001-APP-100/2015-16 dated 21.5.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals I), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Vadodara. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e said order, the Appellant preferred Appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their Appeal. Hence, the present Appeal. 4. Ld. Advocate Shri Dhaval K. Shah for the Appellant argued that the input services common to manufacturing as well as activity of trading cannot be segregated, as the trading activity came to be considered an exempted service with effect from 1.4.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ngs of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 6. I find that undisputedly during the relevant period, the Appellant used common input service in the manufacture of dutiable good and also in activity of trading. Considering the trading activity as exempted service, demand notice was issued to recover the proportionate credit availed on the service tax paid on such input service attributable to trading ....