TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and windows, UPVC windows, UPVC scrap and others falling under chapter 73083000, 39252000, 39259090 & 73089090 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of the audit of records for the period from April 2007 to January 2012, it was observed that the appellant was engaged in, manufacturing activity and also involved in trading activity of the goods which are similar to the goods manufactured. It was noticed that the Appellants have availed input service credit on services viz., telephone, security, manpower Recruitment, courier services etc. which are commonly used for the activity of manufacture as well as trading. Hence, it appeared that the quantum of Service Tax credit availed by the Appellants in relation to the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE, Bhopal vs. My Car (Bhopal) Pvt. Ltd. [2018(3) TMI 706-CESTAT, New Delhi. ii. Marudhan Motors vs. CCE&ST, Jaipur-II [2017(47) STR 261 (Tri. Del.)] iii. Tricity Auto vs. CCE, Chandigarh-II [2016(44) STR 601 (Tri. Chan.)] 5. He further submitted that the impugned order invoking the extended period of limitation for raising the demand is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Ruchika Global Interlinks [2017-TIOL-1235-HC-MAD-ST] and also the decision of the high Court in the case of FL Smidth Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE [2014-TIOL-2186-HC-MAD-CX], he has conceded that merits he has no case, since the high Court of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the purpose of reversal of credit under Rule 6 and the interpretation provision explanation to Rule 2(e) of CCR was involved and hence the invocation of longer period was not sustainable in law. He also submitted that the entire demand is based on the record maintained by the appellant and invocation of longer period and imposition of penalty under Rule 15(3) of CCR read with Section 11AC of the Act is not sustainable in law. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bosch Ltd. Vs.CCE&ST, LTU Bangalore [2017(11) TMI 1331-CESTAT Bangalore. 8. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the larger period has rightly been invoked as the appellant has suppre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inks (supra) has held that inclusion in explanation to Rule 2(e) viz. trading was without doubt only clarificatory but the same is applicable retrospectively. Further I also find that the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of HCL Infosystems has observed in para 12 as under:- 12. Show 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 interpr....