9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd.[2016 (6) TMI 230 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], the appellant is liable to pay/reverse the amount of credit arrived at by applying the formula brought forth by the amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2011 - the demand raised beyond the normal period is time barred and requires to be set aside - Taking into consideration that the period is transitional period and also because the appellant has reversed the amount, no penalty is to be imposed - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - ST/23396/2014 - A/30438/17 - Dated:- 8-3-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Sh. G. Prahlad, Advocate for the Appellant. Sh. Guna Ranjan, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent. [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The brief f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011 only. If the said formula is applied the demand for the period April 2011 to March 2012 would be limited to ₹ 1,589/- only. It is also contended by the Ld. Counsel that the demand for the period prior to April 2011 to March 2012 is hit by limitation. He submitted that the issue whether trading falls within the definition of exempted services or not was highly contentious and was later settled by the amendment brought forth to the definition of exempted services. Therefore, the appellant is not guilty of suppression of facts or willful mis-statement. The Show Cause Notice issued invoking extended period is not sustainable. It is also contended by the appellant that the amount of ₹ 1,589/- pertaining to the period April 2011 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the input services like, telephone, internet, travels, courier and insurance both for manufacturing and trading activities also. Trading became exempted service only w.e.f. 01.04.2011. It cannot be considered even as a service prior to that. The appellant cannot take credit of input services used for trading, which was neither taxable service or exempted service prior to 01.04.2011. Hence that portion of credit availed on input services used for trading is not admissible. The question is how to arrive at the quantum used for trading when no separate accounts are maintained. The original authority has adopted the formula given in Rule 6(3A)b(iii). This provision deals in situation when there is both dutiable goods/taxable services and exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te credit that has to be reversed when common input services are used for taxable services and trading activities prior to 01.04.2011 also. It is contended by the appellant that by applying the formula introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2011, the amount liable to be paid by them would be only ₹ 1,589/-, which has been reversed by them. This aspect has not been verified by the adjudicating authority, and therefore requires verification. I hold that applying the judgment in the case of M/s TFL Quinn India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant is liable to pay/reverse the amount of credit arrived at by applying the formula brought forth by the amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2011. The adjudicating authority, is directed to verify and quantify the amount liable to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
