Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2022 (8) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sionerate, Chennai. During verification of accounts, it was noticed that the appellant is availing cenvat credit of service tax paid on various services such as telephone, security service, advertisement, man power supply, maintenance and repair services. These services are common input services for both taxable services as well as trading of goods. However, trading of goods is an exempted service w.e.f. 01.04.2011. As per Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant is required to pay an amount equal to 6% of value exempted services or pay an amount under Rule 6(3A) for the period from April 2011 onwards. The appellant had not reversed the credit or paid the above said amount determined in terms of Rule 6 (3) of CCR 2004. Show ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tigation and there were decisions in favour of the assessee as well as against them. In the case of Kundan Cars Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Pune - 2016 (43) S.T.R. 630 (Tri.-Mumbai), it was held that when the dispute is under litigation and it is interpretational in nature, the demand raised invoking the extended period alleging fraud, collusion and suppression of facts cannot sustain. The Ld. Counsel adverted to the SCN and submitted that the department has not been able to establish any fraud, collusion or suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. The appellant was under bona fide belief that prior to the amendment, trading cannot be considered as an exempted service. He also relied upon the decision in the case of BHEL Vs CC, C.EX & ST Med....