2024 (12) TMI 1358

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of spare parts market in respect of motor vehicles manufactured by them, the appellants had established the warehouses at Kanhe, Pune. In the Kanhe unit, the appellants receive parts and components from their manufacturing unit. Thereafter, the appellants undertake packing/repacking of such parts & components and subsequently, sell the same to the authorized dealers/stockists on payment of Central Excise duty. The appellants also receive parts and components in packed form, from their other manufacturing unit located at Uttaranchal, which are availing the 'area based exemption', in terms of Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. dated 01.06.2003. In respect of parts and components received by the appellants from their Uttaranchal unit, no further ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....before the Tribunal. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants are not involved in any trading activity inasmuch as supply of goods from the Uttranchal unit to their Pune unit cannot be termed as purchase of goods and as such, mere sale of these goods cannot alter the transaction to consider the same as trading activity, in order to fall within the scope and ambit of Rule 2(e) of the Rules of 2004. He further submitted that for the period April, 2009 to March, 2011, "trading" was not specifically defined as an exempted service and thus, the appellants were not required to comply with the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2004. Learned Advocate further submitted that no common input services were di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peals have pleaded that the activity of 'trading' was not an exempted service prior to 01.04.2011 and there were divergent views with regard to such activity, whether to be considered as 'exempted service' or 'otherwise'. Therefore, they have pleaded that though the CENVAT credit availed on the basis of ISD invoices were reflected in the books of account, but the said particulars were not captured in the periodical returns i.e., ER- 1 filed before the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. The appellants have also pleaded that the show-cause notices dated 11.03.2014 and 05.05.2014 issued by the Department, alleging recovery of the CENVAT Credit/payment of amount under Rule 6 of the Rules of 2004 are barred by limitation of time inasmuch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....after 01.04.2011 at the ISD level had already been reversed by their Head Office and as such, it cannot be construed that CENVAT credit on the disputed input services was distributed to the manufacturing unit located at Pune. However, on perusal of the case records, we find that the learned adjudicating authority has not specifically discussed about this aspect of reversal of CENVAT Credit at the ISD stage, as claimed by the appellants. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter should go back to the original authority for ascertaining the fact as to whether, the appellants had reversed the common input services at the time of issuance of invoices by the ISD and that such credit was not distributed to the manufacturing unit located at Pu....