2020 (12) TMI 810

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the case are that the appellant, M/s Anmol Stainless Private Limited, is engaged in the business of manufacture of cold rolling of thick stainless sheets, slitting in small sizes, making stainless pipes etc. classifiable under Chapter No.73049000 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. Based on an EA 2000 audit of the excise and service tax records of the Appellant for the period from 2012-13 to 2014-15, a Show cause notice dated 13/01/2017 was issued alleging irregular availment of Cenvat credit to the tune of Rs. 3,61,355/- along with interest and penalty alleging that the Appellant had engaged itself in trading activities as well as manufacture and sale of excisable goods and have not maintained separate s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he current SCN demanding reversal under Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004 by treating the process as trading of goods cannot be sustained as the goods had suffered excise duty at the time of removal. He relied on the below judgments to support his case: a. SUYASH AUTO PRESS COMPONENTS AND ASSEMBLIES PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE-III 2018-TIOL-1424-CESTAT-MUM b. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., RAIGAD 2018 (362) E.L.T. 898 (Tri. - Mumbai) c. BERICAP INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I 2018 (363) E.L.T. 1078 (Tri. - Mumbai) 6. He further stated that the current proceedings has been initiated by invoking extended period of limitation whereas the knowledge....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rading activity. I find that though this removal of steel sheets is indeed a trading activity, but the said clearances were made on payment of excise duty. Therefore, it cannot be considered as an exempted service. Rule 6 applies on the trading activity only in a case when the goods are purchased and sold without taking credit and without payment of duty. Then only such trading will be considered as exempted service. In the present case, the removal of input under Rule 3(5) was made admittedly on payment of duty. Therefore, there is no case of trading activity which is an exempted service. Accordingly, there is no application of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed."....