2019 (2) TMI 598

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... selling their products, mainly cosmetics, to their customers. Their trading activity was deemed to be an exempted service with effect from 01.04.2011. 2.1 Since appellants were using common inputs/input services for their trading activity also, the Department was of the view that they are not eligible to avail the entire Credit. Though the appellants had reversed Credit as per Rule 6(3)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004, the Department took the view that the appellant has to pay 5%/6% respectively of the value of exempted services, as required under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CCR, 2004. 2.2 Show Cause Notices were issued for different periods raising the above allegations and proposing to demand the differential tax along with inte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....16.05.2013 to the Superintendent of Service Tax and Central Excise, Range-II Division, Chennai-IV, informing that they have not been availing the Credit on the proportionate value of trading activity. Further, they had disclosed the entire reversal of Credit in their ST-3 returns as well as their trial balance sheet. 3.4 He relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Mercedes Benz India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Pune-I - 2015 (40) S.T.R. 381 (Tri. - Mum.) to argue that when the appellant has reversed the Credit as per Rule 6(3A)(ii) of the CCR, 2004, the Department cannot insist that the appellant has to pay an amount equal to 6% of the value of the exempted services/products. 4.1 Ld. AR Shri. L. Nandakumar appearing on beh....