2018 (2) TMI 678

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uarters of the appellant carries on trading and that the services procured there cannot but have been used in relation to trading also. The appellant has failed to maintain separate set of accounts and is unable to compute the value of input services that was rendered to them for such activity. Therefore, the availment, and the distribution thereof, are not in accordance with law - appeal dismisse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1944 and imposed penalty of like amount under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. The first appellate authority, Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II, vide order-in-appeal no. CD/529/Bel/2015 dated 17th June 2015 upheld the order of the original authority leading to this appeal. 3. The primary claim of the appellant, as articulated by the Learned Counsel, is that the exclu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t in accordance with law. Even before the insertion of the Explanation, that trading was not eligible service is apparent from the absence of such a service in section 65 (105) of Finance Act, 1994 that was in vogue during the relevant time. The bar of limitation is, therefore, not an acceptable submission. 6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. (Prono .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X