2018 (6) TMI 1295

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e goods falling under Chapter 73, 82 and 84 of CETA, 1985. The appellants are engaged in providing taxable output service apart from engaging in trading activity i.e. sale of imported goods and is entitled to avail the benefit of CENVAT Credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Department entertained a view that the appellants are availing CENVAT credit on common input services which are used for trading activities whereas the appellant's contention is that they are availing no credit on inputs used exclusively for trading activities. The stand of the appellant is that they have maintained separate accounts/records to establish that input services which were exclusively used for manufacturing of dutiable goods, rendering of 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

....T credit attributable to trading activity, then the question of further demanding amount invoking Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules is not justified in law as well as on facts. It is his further submission that at the time of taking CENVAT credit, the appellant has worked out proportionate CENVAT credit which was exclusively used for manufacturing activity and used only for manufacture of dutiable goods and has availed full credit on that. He further submitted that as far as common input services are concerned, the appellant has followed the formula envisaged in Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules and on that basis has taken credit only that portion which was related to dutiable activity. He further submitted that the Commissioner (App....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 27.08.2014 has informed the department that they have opted to claim the CENVAT on common input services in accordance to the formula specified in Rule 6(3A). Further, I find that the appellant has taken CENVAT credit as per the formula prescribed in Rule 6(3A). The finding of the Commissioner that there is no intimation to the department regarding the trade activity as per Rule 6 of CENVAT Rules, 2004 is not tenable because the assessee specifically stated in their intimation to the department on 27.08.2014 which has been misconstrued by the Commissioner (Appeals). Further, I find that this Tribunal in the case of Cranes and Structural Engineering vs. CCE cited supra, held that non-filing of intimation is only a procedural irregulari....