9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... products and clearance of final products. In the present case, there is no dispute that the appellant availed credit on commission in respect of trading goods, which are not in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and therefore there are not eligible to avail credit on the commission paid on trading goods. - credit was rightly denied - Decided against the assesssee. Appellant had not disclosed the availment of input service credit on commission in respect of trading activities. These facts came to the knowledge of the Department only on verification of the documents such as contract agreements, commission agreements etc. So there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel on limitation - Decided against assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le in relation to the business activities. He further submits that the demand of duty is barred by limitation as the issue involved is the subject-matter of interpretation of law which is decided by the decisions the Hon ble High Courts. He further submits that the definition of input service was amended on 1.4.2011 insofar as trading became an exempted service. 3. On the other hand, the learned AR on behalf of Revenue drew the attention of the Bench the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. He submits that the Tribunal consistently viewed that credit is not eligible in respect of trading services. He relied upon the following decisions:- (a) Metro Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2008 (10) STR 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on trading goods. 6. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant had not taken any CENVAT credit on input service attributable to trading. I do not find any merit in this submission insofar as it is admitted position that the appellant had taken CENVAT credit on that portion of service tax relating to the commission paid on the trading goods. The case laws relied upon by the learned Advocate, perhaps, would support the case of the Revenue. In the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra), it has been held that activities not integrally connected into business of manufacture of final products would not qualify as input service under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules. In the present case, input service credit is not related to business o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
