9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. There was no doubt regarding liability to reverse, extended period and penalty upheld - Relying on the said decision, penalty and the extended period of limitation is also upheld. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. - E/87252/15 - A/89626/17/SMB - Dated:- 19-9-2017 - Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri V.K. Agarwal, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the appellant Ms. Mansi Patil, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per : Raju This appeal has been filed by Revenue against order of Commissioner (Appeals) dropping the demand of reversal of cenvat credit in respect of input services used attributable to trading activity. 2. Ld. AR relied on the grounds of review. He further argued that the issue is squa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5/EB dated 15.10.2015. He argued that decision cited by the appellants were in reference to situation where only exempted services or exempted goods were cleared. The decision in the case of SKF India (supra) and Clariant Chemicals (supra) have been given after considering the traded activities as well. In the case of SKF India Ltd., the Tribunal has observed as under: - 15. The next contention of the appellant was that the credit relating to categories of services specified in Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 shall be allowed. We have gone through the said Rule 6(5). Said sub-rule starts with non-obstanta clause with reference to sub-rule (1), (2) (3) of Rule 6. Eligibility of credit is defined in Rule 3 read with def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Rules, 2004 cannot be extended in respect of trading activities. The said credit needs to be reversed in proportion to the trading turnover and the total turnover. Relying on the aforesaid decision, demand of reversal of cenvat credit is sustained. 6. I also find that in the said decision with respect to imposition of penalty following has been observed:- 5. We find that in the case of Clarient Chemicals (Supra) the tribunal was dealing with similar situation and upheld the invocation of extended period. The tribunal in the said case observed as follows: - 19. Another contention of the learned counsel is relating to limitation viz: demand is issued invoking the extended period of limitation. It is an admitted position ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etc. For the reasons stated earlier, the same is upheld. Penalty imposed in respect of the same is also upheld. It is the primary responsibility of the assessee to take/reverse the credit correctly. The provisions require reversal of credit in these situations. The appellants have not reversed any credit on their own and only when they were investigated that they have reversed as per their own calculation. There was no doubt regarding liability to reverse. In this appeal also they are contesting merely the quantification and not liability to reverse. In these circumstances the extended period has been rightly invoked. The penalty on the appellant company is upheld. 7. Relying on the said decision, penalty and the extended period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
