9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vices were used for exempted services and taxable services/dutiable manufactured items, separate accounts were required to be maintained in respect of inputs and input services failing which there were statutory requirements to be fulfilled. Once we hold that trading is not a service and cannot be considered as service prior to 01.04.2011, the provisions of Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004 which requires payment of a percentage of value of the goods traded, in case separate accounts are not maintained would not be applicable. However, since trading is an activity and certain amount of services would have been used in such activity, the appellants have to reverse proportionate credit attributable to trading activity. Appellant was liable to reverse pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereas some components like Hydraulic Coupling with accessories, GT Inlet Ducting, Gear box with turning gear, Foundation plates motors, Dampers, Air Filter system, Lube oil centrifuge, Batteries, Control Panels, Bus ducts, Boiler feed pumps, Control cables valves, UPS systems, Cables etc., are purchased from vendors. These components are commonly known as Bought out items (BOI), which are directly delivered at customer s site. The appellants are not availing Cenvat Credit of the duty paid on such BOI. 2. After considering the operations of the appellant, the department made out a case which is briefly explained as under: Apart from manufacturing excisable goods and providing taxable services, the appellants are also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subject to Rule 6 (3A). The fact that the appellants were engaged in providing exempted services came to light only during detailed scrutiny of their accounts and as such the facts were suppressed. The onus is on the appellants to file accurate returns with appropriate disclosures and to avail credit only to the extent they are eligible. 3. Based on this, proceedings were initiated for the period from April 2007 to March 2012. In the proceedings it was proposed that appellant is liable to pay an amount of ₹ 4,14,81,667/- for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008; an amount of ₹ 48,77,54,004/- for the period from 1.4.2008 to 31.03.2012. The first amount was demanded on the ground that the appellant had availed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing which there were statutory requirements to be fulfilled. Once we hold that trading is not a service and cannot be considered as service prior to 01.04.2011, the provisions of Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004 which requires payment of a percentage of value of the goods traded, in case separate accounts are not maintained would not be applicable. However, since trading is an activity and certain amount of services would have been used in such activity, the appellants have to reverse proportionate credit attributable to trading activity. Needless to say in respect of common services specified in Rule 6(5) of CCR 2004 such reversal would not be required. 6. It was also submitted during the hearing that after 01.04.2011, appellants were reversing pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
