2018 (7) TMI 526

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i K Poddar, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein value of 6 % on trading goods has been demanded from the appellant. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing of steel wires. During the course of scrutiny, it was revealed that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing and doing trad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... service. Therefore, for the period prior to 2011, no demand is sustainable against the appellant. It is further submitted that the trading activity involves domestic trading and export. For export of goods, they are entitled to avail cenvat credit or they can claim refund of Service Tax paid on the said services. Therefore, in the light of decision of this Tribunal, in the case of M/s. Cap & Seal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onsumption. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. On careful consideration of submissions made by both the sides, I find that in this case, prior to 1.4.2011, no demand is sustainable against the appellant as prior to that, the trading activity was not an exempted service. Therefore, the demand pertaining prior to 2011 is set aside. 7. For the demand post 1.4.2011, I find t....