TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 679
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest and equal penalty by setting aside the Order-in-Original passed by Adjudicating Authority on 31.03.2021, is assailed in this appeal. 2. Facts of the case would go to reveal that appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods like Welding Fixtures for automobile cars and parts of Welding line and it had also effected some transactions involving High sea sales. During the course of Audit, it was observed that Cenvat Credit has been availed on various input services and to the extent of High sea sales. Respondent Department treated such sale as exempted services being trading activity and demanded reversal of credit with interest and penalty as proposed above but Appellant had reversed pro-rata Cenvat Credit as well as filed Declaratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Commissioner had taken total Cenvat Credit of common inputs and input services whereas appellant's computation was based on credit availed on those inputs and input services which were exclusively used for common input and input services and not exclusively for manufacture of dutiable goods/taxable services i.e. 100% of it. 3.1. He also argued that Ld. Adjudicating Authority had rightly dropped the demand on the basis of the Final order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & ST Rajkot Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., reported in 2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 96 (Tri. Ahmedabad), but Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on an Interim order passed by this Tribunal in the case of ThyssenKrupp Industries India Pvt Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from payment of tax and therefore, entire Cenvat Credit Rule-6(3)(ii) dealing with reversal of credit would not be applicable to Appellant's case for which he pleaded for setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the demand. 4. Per contra Ld. Authorised Representative for the Respondent Department Mr. P. K. Acharya, argued in support of the reasoning and rationality of order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and opined that when statute described a formula which is adopted to determine the proportionate credit availed on exempted service, basing on which demand is made, interference by this Tribunal in such an order is uncalled for. 5. I have gone through Appeal Paper Book, written submissions, and rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods are bought and sold then sales tax is levied which later becomes value added tax and now being dealt under GST. The taxable event of service tax is the act of providing service while act of sale alone is covered under taxable event of sales tax. Therefore, to call trade as service is conceptually improper. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the presidential reference made in 1962, gave its landmark verdict that has been reported in 1963 AIR SC 1760 that said, "in one case (excise), the imposition is on the act of manufacture or production while in other (sale tax) it is on the act of sale." 6.1. It is a matter of different interpretation that sometimes there is marginal overlapping of case where goods and services are delivered t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f article 366 of the Constitution" 8. From a bare reading of the definition and provision reproduced above, it is apparently clear that a pure sale, unassociated with delivery of goods and services together, is not to be considered as service. Therefore what is contained in Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 dealing with negative list of services concerning trading of goods and the clarificatory circular referred above as well as inclusion of the same in the explanation appended to clause 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 are mere clarificatory in nature since definition of service as contained in 65B(44) and exempted service in 66D are to be read conjointly and not in exclusion of each other. This being the statutory definiti....