9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .K. Singh : The issue involved in this case is that the appellants are authorised service station and dealer of TVS Motors Ltd. They had taken CENVAT credit on various services like, Security Agency service, Telephone service, Insurance service, Renting of Immovable Property service, Banking and Financial service, Management, Maintenance and Repair service, GTA services and Courier service. They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vices was available in full even if they had been used for providing taxable as well as for exempted services in terms of Rule 6(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which was omitted only with effect from 01.04.2011. There was an audit of their unit in 2007-08 and there was no suppression or mis-statement on their part. They cited CESTAT judgement in the case of CCE, Tirupathi Vs. Shariff Motors [200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment in the case of Tribhuvan Motors Ltd. Vs, CST, Mangalore [2010 (17) STR 281] has been distinguished by Larger Bench decision of CESTAT in the case of M/s. Pagariya Auto Centre Vs.CCE, Aurangabad [M/35/14/SMB/LB/C-IV, dated 12.09.2013 4. Heard both sides. Having regard to the facts that an Explanation was added to Section 65(105) (zo) ibid with effect from 01.04.2011 to clarify that trading is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the period involved in this case is 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2010 and the Show Cause Notice was issued on 16.05.2011. Thus, it is evident that no part of the impugned demand is within the normal period of one year with reference to the date of issue of Show Cause Notice and therefore I hold the demand to be time barred. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
