2017 (9) TMI 891 - AT - Service Tax

CENAVT credit - services for trading activity prior to 01.04.2011 - whether trading activity exempt or not during the impugned order? - Held that - similar issue decided in the case of M/s. FL Smidth Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise 2014 (12) TMI 699 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that there is a clear finding that the appellant had not disclosed the availment of input service credit on commission in respect of trading activities and it came to the knowledge of the Department only on verification of the documents, such as, contract agreements, commission agreements etc. and therefore the plea of limitation was rightly rejected by the Authorities below - credit not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of CENVAT Credit for trading activity pre-01.04.2011.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order dated 25.04.2016 concerning the denial of CENVAT Credit on input services used for both taxable and exempted services by a registered service provider. The appellant failed to maintain a separate account for input services used for trading activity, resulting in a demand for reversal of credit under Rule 6(3)(ii) of the CCR 2004. The show cause notice proposed recovery of irregularly availed credit for the period 2008-09 to 2010-11, along with interest and penalties. The lower authorities confirmed the demand and imposed penalties under relevant provisions. The first appellate authority rejected the appeals, leading to the current appeal.

The main issue revolved around the denial of CENVAT Credit for trading activity pre-01.04.2011. The appellant argued that trading activity was not considered exempted before this date, hence the credit was eligible. However, the Department contended that trading activity should be considered exempted even prior to 01.04.2011, citing judgments by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The Tribunal examined these arguments and referred to the settled law by the Madras High Court in cases like M/s FL Smidth Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ruchika Global Interlinks, which clarified that trading activity should be treated as an exempted service even before 01.04.2011. Therefore, the Tribunal found the appeals devoid of merit and rejected them.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the denial of CENVAT Credit for trading activity pre-01.04.2011 based on the settled law by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The appellant's argument that trading activity was not exempted before this date was dismissed, and the appeals were rejected. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with CENVAT Credit rules and maintaining proper records to avoid such disputes in the future.