TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 315
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvices. The Head Office of Castrol is registered as "input service tax credit distributor", who distributes the input service tax credit by way of invoices. The appellants were also engaged in trading of imported goods. They availed input service tax credit on common input services used for manufacture of finished products as well as trading activities. The department was of the view that trading being an exempted service, the appellants are not eligible for credit on the common input services used in respect of trading activities. On being pointed out, the appellants reversed the credit alongwith interest on common input services attributable to trading and informed the same to the department. However, the department was of the view that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... / 6% of the value of traded goods pertaining to turnover of all units of the company for the period 2006 - 2011. This itself is highly erroneous. Further, the only allegation is that the appellant having not exercised the option provided under Rule 6 (3A), the appellant has to pay an amount of 10% / 8% / 6% as provided in Rule 6 (3)(b)(i). He argued that the requirement of filing a declaration contemplated in Rule 6 (3A) for exercising the option is only a procedural requirement and the appellant cannot be forced to pay an amount of 10% / 8% / 6% of the value of trading goods when the appellant has voluntarily reversed the proportionate credit . To support his contention, he relied upon the decisions in the case of Mercedes Benz India Pvt ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... declaration has to then comply with provisions prescribed in Rule 6 (3)(b)(i) and pay 10% / 8% of the value of traded goods. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The allegation is that the appellant had not maintained separate accounts under Rule 6(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules and had not exercised the option to reverse the credit as provided under Rule 6(3). As provided in Rule 6 (3A), the appellant on being pointed out, has reversed the proportionate credit along with interest. In the SCN itself, it is noted that the appellant has reversed the credit in proportion to the credit availed in respect of trading activity / traded goods. The only reason for raising the demand to the extent of 10% / 8% / 6% of traded goods for the disputed period, is tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11 only, thus it was initial period. We are also of the view that there is no condition provided in the rule that if a particular option, out of three options are not opted, then only option of payment of 5% provided under Rule 6(3)(i) shall be compulsorily made applicable, therefore we are of the view that Revenue could not insist the appellant to avail a particular option. In the present case admittedly it is appellant who have on their own opted for option provided under Rule 6(3)(ii). The meaning of the option as argued by the Ld. Sr. Counsel is that "option of right of choosing, something that may be or is chosen, choice, the act of choosing". From the said meaning of the term 'option', it is clear that it is the appellant who ....