TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 316
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al) Shri S. Thirumalai,, Advocate for Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, Addl. Commr. AR) for Respondent ORDER Per Bench The issue involved in both these appeals being the same, they are heard together and are disposed by this common order. 2. The appellants are engaged in providing taxable services of club or association services and are also registered for services such as health and fit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l 2009 to March 2011 2. Demand of CENVAT credit 86,05,464/- 1,93,20,468/- Interest under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 Not quantified Not quantified Penalty under Rule 15(3) and Rule 15(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 Only Rule 15(3) - Rs. 10,000/- and penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 Equal penalty under Rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n raised on the turnover of the traded goods. The appellant has already suffered VAT on the traded goods and therefore the demand made on turnover traded goods will not sustain. He relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. TFL Quinn India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad - 2016-TIOL-856-CESTAT-HYD to argue that the Tribunal in the said case had considered that for the per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the period prior to 1.4.2011, there was much confusion as to whether trading is an exempted service or can be considered as service at all. In Ruchika Global Interlinks Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2017-VIL-323-MAD-ST, the jurisdictional High Court has held that the trading is to be considered as an exempted service prior to 1.4.2011 also. After going through the records and hearing the su....