2020 (10) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etc. They avail Cenvat credit of central excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods as well as of service tax paid on input services under the provisions of the CCR. During the scrutiny of the records of the Appellant, it was revealed that during the financial year from 2012-13 to 2015-16, apart from manufacture and sale of excisable goods, they had also sold certain goods from time to time. These goods were originally purchased from the open market on payment of VAT and were subsequently sold again on payment of VAT without being subjected to any manufacturing process. The transaction had also been recorded in sale tax records as trading sales, which is an exempted service. They were liable to reverse 6%/7% on the trading value and they ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pair etc.) and accordingly the Appellants are supplying the said spares/accessories on payment of C.Ex. duty equal to the CENVAT credit availed on the said spares/accessories on the said spares/accessories in terms of Rule 3(5) of the CCR, 2004 or on payment of appropriate VAT (where the said spares/accessories are purchased without payment of C.Ex. duty). The said transaction is nothing but the transaction in or in relation to their manufacturing business and hence the same cannot be treated as Trading Activity. He also submits that the provisions of Rule 6 ibid are not applicable on the transactions in question as the definition of 'service' u/s. 65B(44) of Finance Act, 1994 specifically excludes the sale of goods transactions. He also su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....imitation it has been argued by Revenue that the extended period of limitation has been invoked as the appellant neither disclosed the facts to the department voluntarily that they were undertaking the trading activity nor they paid the amount as per the provisions of Rule 6(3) ibid. It was detected by the officers of the department on scrutiny of their records and this lead to the inference that the facts were suppressed and in the absence of detection by the officers of the department, they would have gone unnoticed. So far as suppression is concerned after going through the case records I do not find any suppression on the part of the appellants. As per records, audit of their records has been regularly done by the Central Excise Departm....