2021 (8) TMI 233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of the negative list in the Finance Act, 1994, rice was included in the definition of "agricultural produce". Thus, storage and warehousing of rice was not a taxable service till 01.07.2012. After this date, there was change in scenario of definition of taxable services and section 66D contained the list of services, which are not taxable. Clause (d) of section 66D provided such services relating to agriculture and agricultural produce, which are not taxable. Sub-clause (v) of clause (d) of section 66D stated that loading, unloading, packing, storage and warehousing of agricultural produce was exempted from service tax. Section 65B(5) of the Act defined "agricultural produce" as below: "any produce of agriculture on which either no fur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roduced whereby services of storage and warehousing of rice was expressly made an exempted service. Consequently, prior to this date, the services were taxable. Since the appellants were treating Storage and Warehousing Service of rice as an exempted service from 01.07.2012 onwards, they were liable to pay service tax on the Storage and Warehousing Services from 01.07.2012 to 30.11.2013. They paid this arrears of tax along with interest on 28.12.2013. Resultantly, they became eligible to take back the proportionate credit which was reversed by them during this period, when they treated service of storage and warehousing of rice to be exempted service. The appellants then took suo motu re-credit of Rs. 20,83,773/- being the excess credit rev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....73/- was taken as re-credit by the appellants as such credit was not required to be reversed at all and is not an adjustment of credit under Rule 6(3A). So, this time-limit does not apply to the re-credit taken by them. He prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 3. The learned Authorised Representative Shri L. Nandakumar appeared for the department. He supported the findings in the impugned order. It is stressed by him that since the provision in Cenvat credit rules prescribes the period for reversal/adjustment of excess reversal of proportionate credit and is to be made within a year, the re-credit taken by the appellants on 29.03.2014 is against the provisions of law. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue is with regard to the re-credit ava....