TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces of Business Auxiliary Services and Authorised Service Station Services and were registered with the Department. Department noticed that the appellants were providing both taxable services and non-taxable services and availing CENVAT credit Further, on verifying ST-3 returns filed by the appellant for the period from April 2008 to February 2009 and input credit invoices, it was observed that the appellant had utilized credit to the extent of 20% on the service tax payable regularly and continued the same after 01/04/2008 also. Due to non-following of the procedure under the amended Rule 6(3), it appeared that the appellant had utilized excess credit. Hence a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant and vide the Order-in-original, or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... App)] ii. Franke Faber India P Ltd. vs. CCE [2017-TlOL-353-CESTATMUM] 4.2. He also submitted that in the case of Kundan Cars Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2016-TlOL-1088-CESTAT-MUM] wherein the Tribunal has held that "unless the vehicles are received and sold, there would not be any servicing of the same and hence they are not required to reverse the CENVAT credit attributed to the trading activity", He also submitted that the appellant was under a bona fide belief that based on certain decisions of the Tribunal and accordingly they have not followed the Rule 6 with regard to trading activity and therefore invoking extended period of limitation and imposing penalty is not proper and legal. It is further submitted that even if Rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Trichy [2-14-TIOL-2186-HC-MAD-CX] iii. HCL Infosystem Ltd. vs. CC&CE, Noida [2014-TlOL-3183CESTAT-DEL] 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I find that during the relevant time, trading activity was not amenable to service tax and therefore Rule 6 is applicable to the appellant. Further I find that this issue has been considered in various decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court and it was held consistently that Rule 6 is applicable as the trading activity was not a service at all during the relevant time. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Ruchika Global Interlinks has considered this issue and has held that trading activity was not amenable to service tax at the relevant period and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow cause notices in both cases were issued invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground that the assessee had deliberately failed to disclose availment of cenvat credit utilized for trading which clearly does not amount to input service used for providing taxable or exempted services; and since trading would not in any event be considered an exempted service. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contends that this is a bonafide interpretational error on the part of the assessee and therefore invocation of the extended period is not justifiable. This contention of the assessee does not merit acceptance. Till the fiction was introduced that trading is an exempted service, by the Explanation introduced w. e.f. 01.04.2011 in the Cenvat Cre....