2018 (6) TMI 1200

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te service tax from the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is an authorized dealer for Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. dealing in motor cars and was duly registered with the Service Tax Department under the categories of Authorised Service Station, Business Auxiliary Service and Insurance Commission Service and was paying service tax regularly and was availing the benefit of CENVAT scheme in respect of inputs and input services. Appellant has a authorized service station connected with some of the showrooms and some of the showrooms are exclusively engaged in the trading i.e. sale of motor car parts and accessories. Apart from selling motor cars, all the showrooms also provide certain taxable servic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant was not eligible for availing the CENVAT credit on the input service i.e. servicing done by other authorized service station, as the vehicle gets totally serviced at the other service station and no further servicing had taken place at the appellant premises". The appellant has also averred that during the pendency of the adjudication of Statement of Demand, there was an audit conducted by the CAG and on the basis of the audit, the Department entertained a view that the appellant has contravened the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CCR and has taken CENVAT credit on exempted services i.e. trading activity and has not maintained separate account. Thereafter the Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty and a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... canvassed in the show-cause notice. In support of this, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE vs. sun Pharmaceuticals Inds. Ltd. [2015(326) ELT 3 (SC)] ii. Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. CCE [2015(325) ELT 632 (SC)] iii. CCE Vs. Sunrise Structural & Engg. (P) Ltd. [2002(148) ELT 503 (T)] iv. SACI Allied Products Ltd. [2005(183) ELT 225 (SC)] v. Reckitt & Coleman of India Ltd. vs. CCE [1996(88) ELT 641 (SC)] vi. Ashok Shetty & Associates CA vs. CCE [2017(4) GSTL 53 (Tri. Bang.)] Besides this, the appellant has also argued on merit regarding the violation of. Rule 6 of CCR but without prejudice to basic contention raised by the appellant which is setting up a new case which was not in the show-cause notice. 5. On the other ....